Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Predator State Bulletin, 2016

Home 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 23, 2019] Americas Spiral Into Permanent War Seems More Foolish Than Ever by Conn Hallinan ,

Notable quotes:
"... Spiral: Trapped in the Forever War. ..."
"... Through the Looking Glass ..."
Nov 18, 2016 | fpif.org

Donald Trump is inheriting the scariest tools of aggression imaginable. A new book explores their dark legacy.

Journalist Mark Danner explores how Washington's disastrous policies in the Middle East became standard operating procedure. (Photo: Berkeley School of Journalism)

"We have fallen into a self-defeating spiral of reaction and counterterror," writes Mark Danner in his new book Spiral: Trapped in the Forever War. "Our policies, meant to extirpate our enemies, have strengthened and perpetuated them."

Danner - an award winning journalist, professor, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has covered war and revolutions on three continents - begins Spiral with the aftermath of a 2003 ambush of U.S. troops outside of Fallujah, Iraq.

The insurgents had set off a roadside bomb, killing a paratrooper and wounding several others. "The Americans promptly dismounted and with their M-16s and M-4s began pouring lead into everything they could see," including a passing truck, he writes. "By week's end scores of family and close friends of those killed would join the insurgents, for honor demanded they kill Americans to wipe away family shame."

The incident encapsulates the fundamental contradiction at the heart of George W. Bush's - and with variations, Barack Obama's - "war on terror": The means used to fight it is the most effective recruiting device that organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Shabab, and the Islamic State have.

Targeted assassinations by drones, the use of torture, extra-legal renditions, and the invasions of several Muslim countries have combined to yield an unmitigated disaster, destabilizing several states, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generating millions of refugees.

Putting War Crimes on the Menu

Danner's contention is hardly breaking news, nor is he the first journalist to point out that responding to the tactic of terrorism with military force generates yet more enemies and instability. But Spiral argues that what was once unusual has now become standard operating procedure, and the Obama administration bears some of the blame for this by its refusal to prosecute violations of international law.

Torture is a case in point.

In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration introduced so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were, in fact, torture under both U.S. and international law. Danner demonstrates that the White House, and a small cluster of advisers around Vice President Dick Cheney, knew they could be prosecuted under existing laws, so they carefully erected a "golden shield" of policy memos that would protect them from prosecution for war crimes.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama announced that he had "prohibited torture." But, as Danner points out, "torture violates international and domestic law and the notion that our president has the power to prohibit it follows insidiously from the pretense that his predecessor had the power to order it. Before the war on terror official torture was illegal and an anathema; today it is a policy choice."

And president-elect Donald Trump has already announced that he intends to bring it back.

There is no doubt that enhanced interrogation was torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross found the techniques "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." How anyone could conclude anything else is hard to fathom. Besides the waterboarding - for which several Japanese soldiers were executed for using on Allied prisoners during World War II - interrogators used sleep deprivation, extreme confinement, and "walling." Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, describes having a towel wrapped around his neck that his questioners used "to swing me around and smash repeatedly against the wall of the [interrogation] room."

According to a 2004 CIA memo, "An HVD [high value detainee] may be walled one time (one impact with the wall) to make a point, or twenty to thirty times consecutively when the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question." There were, of course, some restraints. For instance, the Justice Department refused to approve a CIA proposal to bury people alive.

And, as Danner points out, none of these grotesque methods produced any important information. The claim that torture saved "thousands of lives" is simply a lie.

There was a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about the whole thing. Zubaydah was designated a "high official" in Al Qaeda, the number three or four man in the organization. In reality he wasn't even a member, as the Justice Department finally admitted in 2009. However, because he was considered a higher up in the group, it was assumed he must know about future attacks. If he professed that he didn't know anything, this was proof that he did, and so he had to be tortured more. "It is a closed circle, self-sufficient, impervious to disobedient facts," says Danner.

The logic of the Red Queen.

Through the Looking Glass

The Obama administration has also conjured up some interpretations of language that seem straight out of Lewis Carroll.

In defending his use of drone strikes in a 2014 speech at West Point, the president said he only uses them "when we face a continuing, imminent threat." But "imminent" means "likely to occur at any moment" and is the opposite of "continuing." A leaked Justice Department memo addresses the incongruity by arguing, "Imminent does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

Apparently the administration has now added "elongated" to "imminent," so that "a president doesn't have to deem the country under immediate threat to attack before acting on his or her own." As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass , "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."

Danner turns the phrase "American exceptionalism" on its head. The U.S. is not "exceptional" because of its democratic institutions and moral codes, but because it has exempted itself from international law. "Americans, believing themselves to stand proudly for the rule of law and human rights, have become for the rest of the world a symbol of something quite opposite: a society that imprisons people indefinitely without trial, kills thousands without due process, and leaves unpunished lawbreaking approved by its highest officials."

The war has also undermined basic constitutional restrictions on the ability of intelligence agencies and law enforcement to vacuum up emails and cell phone calls, and has created an extra-legal court system to try insurgents whose oversight and appeal process in shrouded in secrecy.

Failure by Any Measure

The war on terror - the Obama administration has re-titled it a war on extremism - hasn't been just an illegal and moral catastrophe. It's a failure by any measure. From 2002 to 2014, the number of deaths from terrorism grew 4,000 percent, the number of jihadist groups increased by 58 percent, and the membership in those organizations more than doubled.

The war has also generated a massive counterterrorism bureaucracy that has every reason to amp up the politics of fear. And yet with all the alarm this has created, a total of 24 Americans were killed by terrorism in 2014, fewer than were done in by lighting.

Terrorism, says Danner, is "la politique du pire," the "politics of the worst" or the use of provocation to get your enemy to overreact. "If you are weak, if you have no army of your own, borrow you enemy's. Provoke your adversary to do your political work for you," he says. "And in launching the war on terror, eventually occupying two Muslim countries and producing Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib celebrating images of repression and torture, the United States proved all too happy to oblige."

Danner argues that idea you can defeat terrorism - which is really just a tactic used by the less powerful against the more powerful - with military force is an illusion. It can and does, however, make everything worse.

Even the Department of Defense knows this. In 2004, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board found that:

Increasingly the war on terrorism (or "extremism," if you prefer) is a secret war fought by drones whose targets are never revealed, or by Special Operations Forces whose deployments and missions are wrapped in the silence of national security.

And as long as Obama calls for Americans "to look forward as opposed to looking backward," the spiral will continue.

As Danner argues, "It is a sad but immutable fact that the refusal to look backward leaves us trapped in a world without accountability that [Obama's] predecessor made. In making it possible, indeed likely, that the crimes will be repeated, the refusal to look backward traps us in the past."

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedge.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com .

[Dec 18, 2017] Can The Deep State Be Cured

Notable quotes:
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read this article . Just after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement from the actions of our government with most Americans .

We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity and abject failure of these wars?

Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ. How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious and scared.

The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured.

My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since he won that Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:

"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "

[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."

This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.

The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.

Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.

Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses, MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case), and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The bad dealings toward, and genuine fear of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and more regulated population – is heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."

Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.

Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state, and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this dynamic lies the cure.

Jim in MN Tallest Skil Aug 20, 2016 8:22 PM

I made a list of steps that could be taken to disrupt the Beast. It's all I can offer but I offer it freely.

https://www.scribd.com/document/67758041/List-of-Demands-October-6-2011

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE

I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years

3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase

2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted cash from these entities

3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal penalties for violation

B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS

1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts

2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients

3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad

III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.

2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules

3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors, specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments. These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public on the Internet.

B. PENSION FUNDS

1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.

Winston Churchill -> Sam Clemons Aug 20, 2016 7:26 PM

Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks doesn't.

sinbad2 -> Winston Churchill Aug 20, 2016 7:58 PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.

Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.

[Jul 28, 2017] Reply

Jul 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

cartman , July 23, 2017 at 11:38 am

G7 Ambassadors Support Cutting of Pensions in the Ukraine
marknesop , July 23, 2017 at 12:13 pm
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?

Ah. They plan to raise the age at which you qualify for a pension , doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.

This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to sell off its agricultural land in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if. Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth plus a chink in Europe's armor against GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.

Cortes , July 23, 2017 at 4:18 pm
And pollution of areas of Russian soil from blown in GMO seeds. Creating facts on the ground.
Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 4:18 am
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
Jen , July 24, 2017 at 5:03 am
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their families next!

That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.

yalensis , July 24, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Nine out of ten doctors recommend Camels.
The other one doctor is a woman, who smokes Virginia Slims.

Patient Observer , July 24, 2017 at 6:09 pm
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive unless people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just depressed myself.
kirill , July 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Jen , July 25, 2017 at 4:56 am
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other government goods and services or through their taxes.

But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest. In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.

Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't want the money to go towards social welfare spending.

marknesop , July 25, 2017 at 9:18 am
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is usually absorbed by the cost of living.

But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well. In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.

Patient Observer , July 25, 2017 at 7:07 pm
In an economy based on looting, it makes perfect sense. Money flows only one way until its all gone.

[Mar 11, 2017] Needed Now a Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come by Andrew Levine

Mar 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems grotesque.

As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.

He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.

More

[Dec 31, 2016] I simply dont believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.robustanalysis.net
Chris G said... December 29, 2016 at 05:50 PM

And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham.

Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.

Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.

On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Chris G said in reply to Mr. Bill... Anyway, get involved. December 29, 2016 at 06:39 PM

Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated, I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.

Chris G said in reply to Chris G ... December 29, 2016 at 06:30 PM

Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."

Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not.

Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."

Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naďveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] I simply dont believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.robustanalysis.net
Chris G said... December 29, 2016 at 05:50 PM

And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham.

Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.

Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.

On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Chris G said in reply to Mr. Bill... Anyway, get involved. December 29, 2016 at 06:39 PM

Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated, I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.

Chris G said in reply to Chris G ... December 29, 2016 at 06:30 PM

Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."

Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not.

Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."

Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.

[Dec 31, 2016] What Happened to Obamas Passion

This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"... Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet, if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
Aug 06, 2011 | nytimes.com

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:

"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods, with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands. That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement. It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.

And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.

But there was no story - and there has been none since.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."

When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply, and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.

Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill. The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics - in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his true and repugnant face in public.

IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his temperament just didn't bend that far.

Michael August 7, 2011

Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration that so many of us have felt watching Mr...

Bill Levine August 7, 2011

Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...

AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011

"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it,...

cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011

Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class; and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!

SP California August 7, 2011

Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant and urgent question.

If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?

farospace san francisco August 7, 2011

Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well, he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."

Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?

Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011

This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?

We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.

These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.

Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum. He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans.

Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem. -->

An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011

I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA. Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.

And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.

I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.

Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is.

So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.

martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011

This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure of the Obama presidency.

If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.

I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans, he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.

He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.

I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are.

Perhaps all of these are true.

[Dec 31, 2016] Like Iraq WMD Fiasco, Russia Story Does Not Add Up

If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services? '
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions. And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Dec 30, 2016 | mishtalk.com

Yesterday, President Obama expelled 35 Russian "Operatives" from the Russian Embassy .

Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?

The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is " insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence ).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind.

Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians'

John McAfee, founder of the security firm McAfee Associates, says 'I Can Guarantee You, It Was Not the Russians' .

The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location.

McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location, their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said

"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."

Question of Patriotism

It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling, and wars.

Related

keepitsimple , December 30, 2016 1:41:03 at 1:41 PM
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old story, over and over again.
Bobdough , December 30, 2016 10:51:52 at 10:51 PM
Not gullibilty, but complicity
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:07:19 at 2:07 PM
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time?

No problem if they deliver proof.

James Greenberg , December 30, 2016 6:30:47 at 6:30 PM
Read 1984. It will explain EVERYTHING.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 7:05:07 at 7:05 PM
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees interesting vs political bias they exhibit.

Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone upsetting that plan.

Crysangle , December 30, 2016 8:56:05 at 8:56 PM
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.

Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-30/italy-urges-europe-begin-censoring-free-speech-internet

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:53:11 at 9:53 AM
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians!

Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero! So, while Palestinians struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!

Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?

Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law

Michael G , December 31, 2016 9:58:31 at 9:58 AM
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97% this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Greg , December 30, 2016 2:07:48 at 2:07 PM
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
The_Fish , December 30, 2016 2:09:55 at 2:09 PM
Some rumours Obama to be considered for UN role and Cameron NATO.
Germ , December 30, 2016 2:13:34 at 2:13 PM
It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!"
Winston , December 30, 2016 3:43:28 at 3:43 PM
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.

And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

Winston , December 30, 2016 3:52:29 at 3:52 PM
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort.

Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."

fingerhole , December 30, 2016 5:24:36 at 5:24 PM
Any government that claims a right to secrecy over its affairs is going to use lying as a policy.
Steven milgrom , December 30, 2016 4:17:51 at 4:17 PM
Snowden says that it is auite easy to trace the source of the hackers.
madashellowell , December 30, 2016 4:21:48 at 4:21 PM
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate.

I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:25:43 at 1:25 PM
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.

Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians, both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was clear the wars were pointless.

Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.

vooch , December 30, 2016 5:18:15 at 5:18 PM
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
Winston , December 30, 2016 5:24:35 at 5:24 PM
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/

Excerpt:

"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."

WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."

The_Fish , December 30, 2016 5:54:31 at 5:54 PM
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined themes.

Little people upset the apple-cart? http://www.globalresearch.ca/bilderberg-chooses-hillary-clinton-for-2016/5454829

wootendw , December 30, 2016 6:01:33 at 6:01 PM
"We just don't know "

The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:09:50 at 9:09 PM
One of the leakers is dead, we know that.
joelg5 , December 30, 2016 6:35:45 at 6:35 PM
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.

McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.

The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.

After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.

Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial interests to nurture the misma.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.

Ron J , December 31, 2016 12:32:19 at 12:32 PM
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when JFK took an independent view "

All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over 50 years.

After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack, believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.

CJ , December 30, 2016 8:15:54 at 8:15 PM
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too stupid.
Truth seeker , December 30, 2016 9:32:32 at 9:32 PM
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.

Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots, it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your naďveté here surprises me!

Bobdough , December 30, 2016 11:00:12 at 11:00 PM
The Russians are coming!

Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.

greg , December 30, 2016 9:52:15 at 9:52 PM
Germany takes back its gold from US. Finally, after the Fed Res refused an audit request. http://www.pravdareport.com/business/finance/27-12-2016/136521-gold-0/
Simon Hodges , December 31, 2016 7:57:09 at 7:57 AM
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.

The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.

Seenitallbefore , December 31, 2016 9:48:10 at 9:48 AM
Don't be stupid. The Russians did it. CNN reported it, so it must be true.
Winston , December 31, 2016 10:22:42 at 10:22 AM
Supporting -EXACTLY- the points I've previously made here: Russian Hackers Said To "Penetrate US Electricity Grid" Using Outdated Ukrainian Malware

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-31/russian-hackers-said-penetrate-us-electricity-grid-using-outdated-ukrainian-malware

Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.

Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking tools that are widely available for purchase.

He said:

1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.

Fred Rogers , December 31, 2016 1:09:53 at 1:09 PM
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't.

Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?

And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?

I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote

[Dec 31, 2016] The last hissy fit of neocon Obama is probably connected with the loss of Alepo and being sidelined in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
Dec 31, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.

But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage .

"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."


vgnych 8h ago

All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.

All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.

Max South , 30 Dec 2016 18:56
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).

The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.

This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.

MacCosham -> Max South , 30 Dec 2016 19:38
There were no hacks, the DNC emails were leaked by disgruntled insiders. As brilliantly said by the heroic former diplomat Craig Murray. Reply
CDNBobOrr , 30 Dec 2016 18:58
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened. Reply
antobojar , 30 Dec 2016 19:00
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..

.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..

P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.

chiefwiley -> Tribal War , 30 Dec 2016 21:49
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary, because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.

After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.

Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:02
Talk about sore loser. Obama's actions are disgraceful. The sooner he leaves office the better. Reply Share
AveAtqueCave -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.

I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.

He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily) implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.

Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose this all on her own. They won't.

The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.

blocksburg -> Phrygian , 30 Dec 2016 19:18
Indeed, may even be seen as treasonous behaviour Reply
Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:06
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy. Reply Share
Down2dirt -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:17
What a foolish comment. Reply Share
Ilurktostudyyouall -> Munchausen007 , 30 Dec 2016 19:39
And what happens when you begin to realise many are not putinbots? Reply Share
Not4TheFaintOfHeart -> Ilurktostudyyouall , 30 Dec 2016 19:58
I'm sure they'll find some excuse to get around that...
'It's elephants all the way down', don't forget Reply
ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 19:07
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who.

Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria.

Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. Reply

foolisholdman -> ukc ltd , 30 Dec 2016 20:01
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.

The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more.

Terry Phillips , 30 Dec 2016 19:19
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:24
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?

Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.

TheWindsOfFreedom -> 86753oh9 , 30 Dec 2016 19:33
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.

United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...

Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:26
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Down2dirt -> Fulhamred , 30 Dec 2016 19:31
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise. Reply Share
Individualist -> Down2dirt , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Actually the biggest ISIS enabler was Cheney.
Down2dirt -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:42
Well you're probably right about that.
rocjoc43rd -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:45
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.

You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.

cosmith , 30 Dec 2016 19:27
So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ?

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

For those of you who are too young to remember, look up "Cold War" and look for references
to Hawks and Doves.

Who are the Hawks now - and who are the Doves ?

The Left/Liberal paradigm is so drastically in need of updating that it is becoming downright dangerous.

Hell hath on fury like a self defined "liberal" scorned.

Banker1 -> Individualist , 30 Dec 2016 19:48
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Haigin88 , 30 Dec 2016 19:30
R.E.M.: 'Exhuming McCarthy'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMedTmZKo38 Reply Share
gottliebvera , 30 Dec 2016 19:34
I think Obama is behaving in a most petulant and non-presidential manner. Lack of decorum as parting shot. Good going. Reply Share
UnitedundertheSun -> Jonathan Stromberg , 30 Dec 2016 23:10
Attack Russia with a wet lettuce? Oh the pain! And gives Putin the high moral ground. Brilliant politics from Obama.

All to hamfistedly conceal what a rotten dysfunctional political organisation he heads.

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

chelsea55 , 30 Dec 2016 19:35
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
chelsea55 -> LithophaneFurcifera , 30 Dec 2016 21:57
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.

[Dec 28, 2016] Americans Want Foreign-Policy Restraint

Dec 28, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S. democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29 percent not sure).

The poll overall seemed to suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria, compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of 35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East, while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.

But the poll also indicated the American people don't want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.

And the poll suggested Americans view China with a certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no. But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42 percent favored the term competitor.

[Dec 28, 2016] How NOT to hack an election Russian Hack EXPOSED as Hoax Zero Hedge

Dec 28, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
For those who missed it among the deluge of propaganda, the Russian 'hack' of the election has been exposed as a huge hoax:

A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

For those who have read our book Splitting Pennies - this comes as no surprise. As we explain in the book, the world is manipulated by several large global "Banks" which are also owners of big news outlets that control the flow of information around the world (i.e. Thompson Reuters). The surprise here is that the disinformation campaign goes so deep, it has even fooled senators into voting for a bill to stop Russian propaganda; which - on the surface, every flag waving US senator should agree with. No one wants foreign spies or foreign propaganda influencing the domestic population. But how big is the 'threat' of 'Russian' propaganda and how has it been overplayed, in a final 'hail mary' attempt to disrupt the legitimate political process. The motto, the modus operandi of the Illuminati controlled CIA "Order from Chaos" is explained on their 'think tank' website here.

Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls (Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).

How to Hack an Election

Interestingly, Bloomberg (although biased Bloomberg is still one of the only mainstream news sources that still produces real, investigative journalism globally) in April published an extremely well researched composition "How to Hack an Election" detailing the life of a real election hacker, Andres Sepulveda and his US political 'analyst' partner, Juan Jose Rendon. To understand how foolish the claim about Russians hacking the election, readers can study the story of Sepulveda who successfully hacked multiple elections in Latin America and was paid millions for his efforts:

When Peńa Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.

For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peńa Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peńa Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.

Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's National Advancement Party would comment.

The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population. Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!

Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and gather support for a reduced sentence.

Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret "insurance policy."

We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive online campaign was staged against Trump.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything."

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peńa Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.

While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing - it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.

By the way, if you want to disguise your IP address as if you are living in Russia, there's a service that will do this for about $10/month - millions of people use this service. You can sign up for it too, and choose what country you want to be 'from' - Canada, Brazil, Russia - take your pick.

Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of how NOT to hack an election.

To learn more about the way the world works, checkout Splitting Pennies. To gain some Alpha in your portfolio for QEP / ECP investors checkout Alpha Z Advisors.

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets .
Mike Masr , Dec 28, 2016 8:06 AM

This truth will be swept under the rug and regarded as "fake news" because it doesn't fit the official Obama narrative that Russia did it!
mary mary Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:55 PM
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.

(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)

Grandad Grumps , Dec 27, 2016 2:58 PM
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:25 PM
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented to them.

Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.

Dick Buttkiss Fathead Slim , Dec 27, 2016 2:42 PM
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."

Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.

Fathead Slim Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 6:57 PM
Yep, a prime example. TV addicts are also convinced that they've seen news broadcasts that announced the finding of WMDs in Iraq.
Kefeer Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 4:49 PM
You left out that the man was also on dialysis.
jeff montanye Kefeer , Dec 27, 2016 6:51 PM
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection, rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed, at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/

this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.

all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.

  • http://www.whale.to/b/israel_did_911.html
  • https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/-solving-9...
  • http://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586
  • http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl... .
  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick/
  • https://smile.amazon.com/dp/098213150X/sr=1-1/qid=1467687982/ref=olp_pro...
  • http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
  • Twodogs jeff montanye , Dec 28, 2016 8:33 AM
    Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything, without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
    BSHJ Dick Buttkiss , Dec 27, 2016 3:06 PM
    Well, he was probably always watching HGTV and knew all the right tricks to make his man-cave as efficient as possible.
    mary mary BSHJ , Dec 27, 2016 6:58 PM
    So easy (with a little help from Bush and Cheney) that even a cave-man could do it. ....

    [Dec 27, 2016] Class Struggle In The USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend much of their time begging the rich for contributions. ..."
    "... Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph 9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below the official poverty line." ..."
    "... The current foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law, and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those with capital or in a position to seek rents. This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them. ..."
    "... the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. ..."
    "... if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non rich you are simply proposing theft. ..."
    "... what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich. ..."
    "... you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable security for their savings.) ..."
    "... made by the ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome. ..."
    "... The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. ..."
    "... A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues" ..."
    Mar 29, 2015 | Angry Bear

    Noam Scheiber has a hard hitting article on the front page of www.nytimes.com "2016 Candidates and Wealthy Are Aligned on Inequality"

    The content should be familiar to AngryBear readers. A majority of Americans are alarmed by high and increasing inequality and support government action to reduce inequality. However, none of the important 2016 candidates has expressed any willingness to raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans want to cut them and Clinton (and a spokesperson) dodge the question.

    Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend much of their time begging the rich for contributions.

    No suprise to anyone who has been paying attention except for the fact that it is on the front page of www.nytimes.com and the article is printed in the business section not the opinion section. Do click the link - it is brief, to the point, solid, alarming and a must read.

    I clicked one of the links and found weaker evidence than I expected for Scheiber's view (which of course I share

    "By contrast, more than half of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats believe the "government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," according to a Gallup poll of about 1,000 adults in April 2013."

    It is a small majority 52% favor and 47% oppose. This 52 % is noticeably smaller than the solid majorities who have been telling Gallup that high income individuals pay less than their fair share of taxes (click and search for Gallup on the page).

    I guess this isn't really surprising - the word "heavy" is heavy maaaan and "redistribute" evokes the dreaded welfare (and conservatives have devoted gigantic effort to giving it pejorative connotations). The 52% majority is remarkable given the phrasing of the question. But it isn't enough to win elections, since it is 52% of adults which corresponds to well under 52% of actual voters.

    My reading is that it is important for egalitarians to stress the tax cuts for the non rich and that higher taxes on the rich are, unfortunately, necessary if we are to have lower taxes on the non rich without huge budget deficits. This is exactly Obama's approach.

    Comments (87)

    Jerry Critter

    March 29, 2015 10:40 pm

    Get rid of tax breaks that only the wealthy can take advantage of and perhaps everyone will pay their fair share. The same goes for corporations.

    amateur socialist

    March 30, 2015 11:42 am

    Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph 9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below the official poverty line."

    I'm fine with raising people's taxes by increasing their wages. A story I heard on NPR recently indicated that a single person needs to make about $17-19 an hour to cover most basic necessities nowadays (the story went on to say that most people in that situation are working 2 or more jobs to get enough income, a "solution" that creates more problems with health/stress etc.). A full time worker supporting kids needs more than $20.

    You double the minimum wage and strengthen people's rights to organize union representation. Tax revenues go up (including SS contributions btw) and we add significant growth to the economy with the increased purchasing power of workers. People can go back to working 40-50 hours a week and cut back on moonlighting which creates new job opportunities for the younger folks decimated by this so called recovery.

    Win Win Win Win. And the poor overburdened millionaires don't have to have their poor tax fee fees hurt.

    Mark Jamison, March 30, 2015 8:09 pm

    How about if we get rid of the "re" and call it what it is "distribution". The current foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law, and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those with capital or in a position to seek rents.

    This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them. Democrats cede the rhetoric to the Right when they allow the discussion to be about redistribution. Even talk of inequality without reference to the basic legal constructs that are rigged to create slanted outcomes tend to accepted premises that are in and of themselves false.

    The issue shouldn't be rejiggering things after the the initial distribution but creating a system with basic rules that level the opportunity playing field.

    coberly, March 30, 2015 11:03 pm

    Thank You Mark Jamison!

    An elegant, informed writer who says it better than I can.

    But here is how I would say it:

    Addressing "inequality" by "tax the rich" is the wrong answer and a political loser.

    Address inequality by re-criminalizing the criminal practices of the criminal rich. Address inequality by creating well paying jobs with government jobs if necessary (and there is necessary work to be done by the government), with government protection for unions, with government policies that make it less profitable to off shore

    etc. the direction to take is to make the economy more fair . actually more "free" though you'll never get the free enterprise fundamentalists to admit that's what it is. You WILL get the honest rich on your side. They don't like being robbed any more than you do.

    But you will not, in America, get even poor people to vote to "take from the rich to give to the poor." It has something to do with the "story" Americans have been telling themselves since 1776. A story heard round the world.

    That said, there is nothing wrong with raising taxes on the rich to pay for the government THEY need as well as you. But don't raise taxes to give the money to the poor. They won't do it, and even the poor don't want it except as a last resort, which we hope we are not at yet.

    urban legend, March 31, 2015 2:07 am

    Coberly, you are dead-on. Right now, taxation is the least issue. Listen to Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker: the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. Minimum wage will help at the margins to push incomes up, and it's the easiest initial legislative sell, but the public will support policies - mainly big-big infrastructure modernization in a country that has neglected its infrastructure for a generation - that signal a firm commitment to full employment.

    It's laying right there for the Democrats to pick it up. Will they? Having policies that are traditional Democratic policies will not do the job. For believability - for convincing voters they actually have a handle on what has been wrong and how to fix it - they need to have a story for why we have seem unable to generate enough jobs for over a decade. The neglect of infrastructure - the unfilled millions of jobs that should have gone to keeping it up to date and up to major-country standards - should be a big part of that story. Trade and manufacturing, to be sure, is the other big element that will connect with voters. Many Democrats (including you know who) are severely compromised on trade, but they need to find a way to come own on the right side with the voters.

    coberly, March 31, 2015 10:52 am

    Robert

    i wish you'd give some thought to the other comments on this post.

    if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non rich you are simply proposing theft. if you were proposing raising taxes on the rich to provide reasonable welfare to those who need it you would be asking the rich to contribute to the strength of their own country and ultimately their own wealth.

    i hope you can see the difference.

    it is especially irritating to me because many of the "non rich" who want their taxes cut make more than twice as much as i do. what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich.

    "the poor" in this country do not pay a significant amount of taxes (Social Security and Medicare are not "taxes," merely an efficient way for us to pay for our own direct needs . as long as you call them taxes you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable security for their savings.)

    Kai-HK, April 4, 2015 12:23 am

    coberly,

    Thanks for your well-reasoned response.

    You state, 'i personally am not much interested in the "poor capitalist will flee the country if you tax him too much." in fact i'd say good riddance, and by the way watch out for that tarriff when you try to sell your stuff here.'

    (a) What happens after thy leave? Sure you can get one-time 'exit tax' but you lose all the intellectual capital (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs leaving and taking their intellectual property and human capital with them). These guys are great jobs creators it will not only be the 'bad capitalists' that leave but also many of the 'job creating' good ones.

    (b) I am less worried about existing job creating capitalists in America; what about the future ones? The ones that either flee overseas and make their wealth there or are already overseas and then have a plethora of places they can invest but why bother investing in the US if all they are going to do is call me a predator and then seize my assets and or penalise me for investing there? Right? It is the future investment that gets impacted not current wealth per se.

    You also make a great point, 'the poor are in the worst position with respect to shifting their tax burden on to others. the rich do it as a matter of course. it would be simpler just to tax the rich there are fewer of them, and they know what is at stake, and they can afford accountants. the rest of us would pay our "taxes" in the form of higher prices for what we buy.'

    Investment capital will go where it is best treated and to attract investment capital a market must provide a competitive return (profit margin or return on investment). Those companies and investment that stay will do so because they are able to maintain that margin .and they will do so by either reducing wages or increasing prices. Where they can do neither, their will exit the market.

    That is why, according to research, a bulk of the corporate taxation falls on workers and consumers as a pass-on effect. The optimum corporate tax is 0. This will be the case as taxation increases on the owners of businesses and capital .workers, the middle class, and the poor pay it. The margins stay competitive for the owners of capital since capital is highly mobile and fungible.Workers and the poor less so.

    But thanks again for the tone and content of your response. I often get attacked personally for my views instead of people focusing on the issue. I appreciate the respite.

    K

    coberly, April 4, 2015 12:34 pm

    kai

    yes, but you missed the point.

    i am sick of the whining about taxes. it takes so much money to run the country (including the kind of pernicious poverty that will turn the US into sub-saharan africa. and then who will buy their products.

    i can't do much about the poor whining about taxes. they are just people with limited understanding, except for their own pressing needs. the rich know what the taxes are needed for, they are just stupid about paying them. of course they would pass the taxes through to their customers. the customers would still buy what they need/want at the new price. leaving everyone pretty much where they are today financially. but the rich would be forced to be grownup about "paying" the taxes, and maybe the politics of "don't tax me tax the other guy" would go away.

    as for the sainted bill gates. there are plenty of other people in this country as smart as he is and would be happy to sell us computer operating systems and pay the taxes on their billion dollars a year profits.

    nothing breaks my heart more than a whining millionaire.

    Kai-HK

    April 4, 2015 11:32 pm

    Sure I got YOUR point, it just didn't address MY points as put forth in MY original post. And it still doesn't.

    More importantly, you have failed to defend YOUR point against even a rudimentary challenge.

    K

    coberly, April 5, 2015 12:45 pm

    kai,

    rudimentary is right.

    i have read your "points" about sixteen hundred times in the last year alone. made by the ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome.

    and i have learned there is no point in trying to talk to true believers.

    William Ryan, May 13, 2015 4:43 pm

    Thanks again Coberly for your and K's very thoughtful insight. You guys really made me think hard today and I do see your points about perverted capitalism being a big problem in US. I still do like the progressive tax structure and balanced trade agenda better.

    I realize as you say that we cannot compare US to Hong Kong just on size and scale alone. Without all the obfuscation going Lean by building cultures that makes people want to take ownership and sharing learning and growing together is a big part of the solution Ford once said "you cannot learn in school what the world is going to do next".

    Also never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. It's because no matter what they do nothing get done about it. With all this manure around there must be a pony somewhere! "

    Last one.

    coberly , May 16, 2015 9:57 pm

    kai

    as a matter of fact i disagree with the current "equality" fad at least insofar as it implies taking from the rich and giving to the poor directly.

    i don't believe people are "equal" in terms of their economic potential. i do beleive they are equal in terms of being due the respect of human beings.

    i also believe your simple view of "equality" is a closet way of guarantee that the rich can prey upon the poor without interruption.

    humans made their first big step in evolution when they learned to cooperate with each other against the big predators.

    Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 12:10 am

    it is mildly progressive up to about $75,000 per year where the rate hits 30%. But from there up to $1.542 million the rate only increases to 33.3%.

    I call that very flat!

    Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 11:20 am

    "i assume there are people in this country who are truly poor. as far as i know they don't pay taxes."

    Read my reference and you will see that the "poor" indeed pay taxes, just not much income tax because they don't have much income. You are fixated on income when we should be considering all forms of taxation.

    Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 9:25 pm

    Oh Kai, cut the crap. Paying taxes Is nothing like slavery. My oh my, how did we ever survive with a top tax rate of around 90%, nearly 3 times the current rate? Some people would even say that the economy then was pretty great and the middle class was doing terrific. So stop the deflection and redirection. I think you just like to see how many words you can write. Sorry, but history is not on your side.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Is Trump's Foreign Policy the New Mainstream

    Dec 26, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    TNI Staff

    December 22, 2016

    With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the American public opted for change. A new poll from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find that other Americans are persuadable.

    Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.

    The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35 percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand. When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent say that it should be increased.

    That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S. should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22 percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree. Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure. About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.

    The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo. U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad. Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54 percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer. In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.

    [Dec 26, 2016] A Century of Surveillance: An Interactive Timeline Of FBI Investigations

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (muckrock.com) 52 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 18, 2016 @09:34PM from the actually-it's-108-years dept. "Over a century of fear and filing cabinets" at the FBI has been exposed through six years of Freedom of Information Act requests. And now MuckRock founder (and long-time Slashdot reader) v3rgEz writes: MuckRock recently published its 100th look into historical FBI files, and to celebrate they've also compiled a timeline of the FBI's history . It traces the rise and fall of J. Edgar Hoover as well as some of the Bureau's more questionable investigations into famous figures ranging from Steve Jobs to Hannah Arendt . Read the timeline, or browse through all of MuckRock's FBI FOIA work.
    The FBI interviewed 29 people about Steve Jobs (after he was appointed to the President's Export Council in 1991), with several citing his "past drug use," and several individuals also saying Jobs would "distort reality."

    [Dec 25, 2016] Debt is about power as it affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals

    Notable quotes:
    "... That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation. ..."
    "... What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals? ..."
    "... Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power. ..."
    "... The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt. ..."
    "... At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s. ..."
    "... Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    readerOfTeaLeaves , December 24, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture was the single most important . In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread between the 1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were recast in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted in the early 1980s; and falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in the 1980s and 1990s. More revolutionary was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s, driven by rise of private label securitisation backed by credit default obligations (CDOs) and swaps. The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable throughout the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This permitted derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that they could be sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change was the deregulation of banks and investment banks . Similar measures to lower required capital on investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in the political context of pressure to extend credit to poor.

    That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation.

    What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals?

    Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power.

    After Brexit, Trump, and the emerging upheaval in the EU, it's no longer enough to just 'build better economic models'.

    The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt.

    At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s.

    Allowing anyone to charge interest that is usurious is the modern equivalent of turning a blind eye to slavery.

    By enabling outrageous interest, any government hands their hard working taxpayers over to what is essentially unending servitude.

    This destroys the political power of any government that engages in such blind stupidity.

    Frankly, I'm astonished that it has taken so long for taxpayers to show signs of outrage and revolt.

    fresno dan , December 24, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    readerOfTeaLeaves

    December 24, 2016 at 11:14 am

    I think you have come up with a good insight – I very much agree its about power and not money.

    Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality.

    And one other thing I would point out – it doesn't take usurious interest rates. If squillionaires have access to unlimited, essentially cost free money in which the distributors of money are guaranteed a profit, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST, while the debts on non-squillionaires are collected with fees, penalties, and to the last dime, than it doesn't matter if interest rates are essentially zero.

    Who gets bailed out is not due to logic or accounting that says that the banks' losses have to be made whole, but not home owners – that is an ideology called economics .

    [Dec 22, 2016] Arming Ukraine Is a Bad Idea The American Conservative

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a clean break from the past.

    In a letter to President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply," the group claims , "Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."

    On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.

    But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the point of irrelevance.

    It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples' republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.

    Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than Washington's.

    There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.

    Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised. In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all, and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.

    Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized $750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.

    What the next administration needs to ask itself, however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government. Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in equal terms.

    The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved, in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015. Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy establishment since the end of the Cold War.

    Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Kremlin Warns Of Response To Latest US Sanctions, Says Almost All Communication With US Is Frozen Zero Hedge

    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

    As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.

    "We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    " Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.

    Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin would seek re-election in 2018."

    "Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking about elections," Peskov said.

    Then again, the sanctions may soon be history. According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and 0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.

    "It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."

    Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.

    An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next 12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.

    "If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist at IHS Markit in Washington.

    The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:42 AM
    And yet another fantastic foreign policy blunder from Obummer. He's trying real hard to start WWIII before he leaves office.

    That a guy with a shady past and forged documents could be come president shows how powerful the Zionists +Deep State are.

    Boris Alatovkrap The Count , Dec 21, 2016 10:43 AM
    Boris is somewhat look forward to post-Obama Amerika, where Russia can negotiate with adult.
    carbonmutant Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:45 AM
    We all are... :)
    hedgeless_horseman carbonmutant , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM

    And we sanction them?

    Boris Alatovkrap hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:51 AM
    Only 14 year?! Is feel like lifetime since Russia is learn painful lesson to avoid land war in Asia.
    chunga Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 11:38 AM
    Is Obama a Russian Agent?

    http://cluborlov.com/

    And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent?

    BarkingCat chunga , Dec 21, 2016 12:06 PM
    Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.

    Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.

    chunga BarkingCat , Dec 21, 2016 12:53 PM
    Orlov was being sarcastic.
    BullyBearish chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:17 PM
    It could be worse:

    In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 26, 2012, Mr. Romney said that Russia is "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."

    Oracle 911 chunga , Dec 21, 2016 3:32 PM
    The agent part is true, not so much the Russian part.

    So, whose agent he is? I don't know for sure, but he ruined the US and made it unable to wage the 3rd WW with weapons or profiting from it.

    hedgeless_horseman Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:58 AM

    Why is the USA and Europe sanctioning Russia?

    7thGenMO Pinto Currency , Dec 21, 2016 1:54 PM
    A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power (and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian than it was before the vote to secede.

    All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks) will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed into Western countries.

    Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman - understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror than any other ethnicity in the USSR.

    Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.

    X_in_Sweden CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 12:57 PM
    "The Zionists invented terrorism in 1948. Read some fucking history."

    That's right

    CuttingEdge

    The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....

    FACT:

    "Folke Bernadotte , Count of Wisborg ( Swedish : Greve af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman. During World War II he negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt camp. They were released on 14 April 1945. [1] [2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler , though the offer was ultimately rejected.

    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. Upon his death, Ralph Bunche took up his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated, at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."

    Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!

    It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.

    SOURCES:

    TheQuay X_in_Sweden , Dec 21, 2016 4:09 PM
    Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
    Fractal Parasite TheQuay , Dec 21, 2016 4:32 PM
    Wikipedia a.k.a. the info-police ...
    HowdyDoody CuttingEdge , Dec 21, 2016 4:38 PM
    Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
    Luc X. Ifer chumbawamba , Dec 21, 2016 1:04 PM
    Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
    Pliskin Luc X. Ifer , Dec 21, 2016 12:41 PM
    I don't see you post here very often Luc X. Ifer, the shekels must be drying up?
    Manthong hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:32 AM

    I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential mess.

    The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give it up.

    If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might scale down a tad.

    They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.

    For me, I just want the Basilica at Sophia back.

    two hoots hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 1:20 PM
    Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.

    "The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/middleeast/israel-benjamin-netan...

    Davy Crockett two hoots , Dec 21, 2016 2:06 PM
    When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.

    America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.

    I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.

    I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries. I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent our interests at all.

    general ambivalent hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 11:50 AM
    My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia, which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.

    I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.

    Mustafa Kemal hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 12:26 PM
    hh, with David Friedman as ambassador, it looks like they may move Israels capitol to Jerusalem. Lots of fun then.
    Justin Case hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 3:24 PM
    Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.

    Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.

    dizzyfingers Manthong , Dec 21, 2016 4:19 PM
    DEVELOPING -- Federal Judge Orders Release of Search Warrant from Clinton Email Case http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/developing-federal-judge-orders-release-of-search-warrant-from-clinton-email-case?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    EXPOSED: Michelle SCREWED Taxpayers, Illegally Giving Our Cash To Daughters http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/exposed-michelle-screwed-taxpayers-illegally-giving-our-cash-to-daughters?mc_cid=a6207925cf&mc_eid=18ffccb24c

    ParkAveFlasher Boris Alatovkrap , Dec 21, 2016 10:53 AM
    Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea? I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe with NJ.
    Manthong ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 11:20 AM
    I think that the coke-head Navy reject's gig is going to be gone pretty soon.
    reload ParkAveFlasher , Dec 21, 2016 12:23 PM
    I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
    HowdyDoody reload , Dec 21, 2016 5:28 PM
    The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.

    One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.

    http://novorossia.today/154366-2/

    Airlift landing in Kharkov

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-efMU3Cl1o

    Meanwhile in west Ukraine, far away from the fighting, there have been around 400 desertions from the Ukraine military.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/31...

    The Ukrops are still shelling civilian areas of Novorssia for sport.

    Luc X. Ifer hedgeless_horseman , Dec 21, 2016 10:52 AM
    Obama's main task now is to damage to the max possible the relations with Russia to make it impossible to be amended later by Trump.

    [Dec 22, 2016] Regulatory Capture 101

    It's not regulation per se is deficient, it is regulation under neoliberal regime, were government is captured by financial oligarchy ;-). But that understanding is foreign to WSJ with its neoliberal agenda :-(.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler. ..."
    "... The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts. ..."
    "... On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight. ..."
    "... The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government? ..."
    "... "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit." ..."
    "... Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. ..."
    "... And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level. ..."
    Oct 05, 2014 | Casino Capitalism and Crapshoot Politics
    Regulatory Capture 101

    Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler.

    The financial scandal du jour involves leaked audio recordings that purport to show that regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were soft on Goldman Sachs . Say it ain't so.

    ... ... ...

    The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts.

    The New York Fed won against Ms. Segarra in district court, though the case is on appeal. The regulator also notes that Ms. Segarra "demanded $7 million to settle her complaint." And last week New York Fed President William Dudley said, "We are going to keep striving to improve, but I don't think anyone should question our motives or what we are trying to accomplish."

    On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight.

    The sleuths at the ProPublica website, working with a crack team of investigators from public radio, also seem to think they have another smoking gun in one of Ms. Segarra's conversations that was not recorded but was confirmed by another regulator. Ms. Seest means. For example, a company offering securities is exempt from some registration requirements if it is only selling to accredited investors, such as people with more than $1 million in net worth, excluding the value of primary residences.

    The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government?

    ***

    Enter George Stigler, who published his famous essay "The Theory of Economic Regulation" in the spring 1971 issue of the Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. The University of Chicago economist reported empirical data from various markets and concluded that "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."

    Stigler knew he was fighting an uphill battle trying to persuade his fellow academics. "The idealistic view of public regulation is deeply imbedded in professional economic thought," he wrote. But thanks to Stigler, who would go on to win a Nobel prize, many economists have studied the operation and effects of regulation and found similar results.

    A classic example was the New York Fed's decision to let Citigroup stash $1.2 trillion of assets-including more than $600 billion of mortgage-related securities-in off-balance-sheet vehicles before the financial crisis. That's when Tim Geithner ran the New York Fed and Jack Lew was at Citigroup.

    Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. This means repealing most of Dodd-Frank and the so-called Basel rules and replacing them with a simple requirement for more bank capital-an equity-to-asset ratio of perhaps 15%. It means bringing back bankruptcy for giant firms instead of resolution at the discretion of political appointees. And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level.

    GS4

    [Dec 22, 2016] Deep State Desperation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
    "... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
    "... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
    "... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
    "... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
    "... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
    "... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
    "... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
    "... "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck ..."
    "... "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America ..."
    Dec 22, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

    The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in the Deep State.

    The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery, repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.

    Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda. Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.

    Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.

    The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power of government.

    With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance, repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR, they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy the US or the entire planet.

    There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).

    What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception. The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately, countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.

    The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.

    1. Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
    2. Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
    3. Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US?
    4. Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in more debt?
    5. How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy?

    The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its failures.

    Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside.

    Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious.

    The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been hard-won wisdom.

    Cheka_Mate -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    Deep State Playback:

    Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

    Example

    "War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck

    Or

    "War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America

    Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty

    Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM

    The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.

    Voila!

    TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM

    Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of Tonkin! Never forget.

    Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

    "In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche..."

    What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.

    StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.

    WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM

    Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!

    BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM

    Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

    red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM

    Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.

    [Dec 21, 2016] M of A - How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations

    The NYT laments today that international negotiations about the situation in Syria now continue without any U.S. participation: Russia, Iran and Turkey Meet for Syria Talks, Excluding U.S.

    Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive the conflict in ways that serve their interests.

    Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.

    With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...

    (Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government forces ...". It was altered after I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)

    Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which, after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

    In a recent interview Kerry admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his agreement with Russia over Syria:

    More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.

    "Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."

    Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.

    The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained, supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal was modified and finally ready to be implemented.

    The Pentagon still did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:

    The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly target terrorist groups.
    Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
    ...
    "I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to say that we're going to jump right into it."

    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During 37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the 100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.

    During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:

    By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.

    Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov deal was off :

    On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes, two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was to begin.
    "I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after abruptly leaving the meeting.

    The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.

    Gareth Porter still found some usable bits in it:

    The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:

    The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.

    Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without giving any public reason, pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.

    With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:

    It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    [I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential] Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly and directly.

    Posted by b at 01:34 PM | Comments (38) AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 2:10:11 PM | 3

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 3:03:26 PM | 4
    though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions:

    It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere on display for everyone to see.

    pubumwei | Dec 21, 2016 3:07:43 PM | 5
    WW3 is obviously just around the corner.

    cantmossadtheassad | Dec 21, 2016 3:25:46 PM | 6
    https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
    Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo. SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included

    likklemore | Dec 21, 2016 3:27:27 PM | 7
    Well b, after multiple revelations of US treachery, the water basket can take only so much.

    Bilateral relationship is at bare minimum. Communication is said to be Frozen - I posted on the previous Open Thread the link below
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-21/kremlin-warns-response-latest-us-sanctions-says-almost-all-communication-us-frozen

    Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.

    "Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    FWIW, The State Department 's full transcript of Presser on the Threesome talks – Kerry out of the loop, Snubbed but briefed - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/12/265846.htm

    Link includes denial US had a role in the assignation of Russia's Ambassador.
    The Denial, https://www.rt.com/news/371097-us-reject-claims-russian-ambassador/ because some have noted the curious timing and connected dots:-

    ((I have a pen Obama and I can dial the red phone.))


    On Friday, 17 December Obama threatened Russia and maintained the no evidence hacking of the US Elections to favor Trump.
    He is quoted as saying:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/obama-plans-retaliation-against-russian-hacking-problem-emerges

    The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.

    Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual Hawaii vacation, his last as president.

    "Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful, methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know, but not everybody will."

    On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by droning.

    plantman | Dec 21, 2016 3:36:48 PM | 8
    This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political objectives.

    I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is a real possibility.

    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9
    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards, so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia.

    james | Dec 21, 2016 3:43:25 PM | 10
    excellent coverage b.. thank you..

    the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian? both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership command? doesn't look like it..

    rg the lg | Dec 21, 2016 3:48:28 PM | 11
    Curiouser and curiouser.

    The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?

    Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit by trying to establish embassies.

    My, my!

    We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution). But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!

    No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.

    Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!

    Wwinsti | Dec 21, 2016 3:51:50 PM | 12
    So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least this is what they say in public.

    PavewayIV | Dec 21, 2016 3:57:59 PM | 13
    I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too. Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.

    All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape and continue the fight.

    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.

    The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them. If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.

    The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.

    MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change, holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels. God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]

    SmoothieX12 | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:02 PM | 14
    Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation. He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.

    If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and, as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically) in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.

    Copeland | Dec 21, 2016 4:07:14 PM | 15
    One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.

    Jen | Dec 21, 2016 4:24:55 PM | 16
    AntiSpin @ 3:

    I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.

    Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.

    The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother trying to argue with her.

    Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17
    I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.

    psychohistorian | Dec 21, 2016 5:14:47 PM | 18
    Thank you b for a splendid piece of journalism.

    While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.

    Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    AntiSpin | Dec 21, 2016 5:16:43 PM | 19
    @Jen 16

    Thanks for your comments. Here's some fresh info (well, fresh to me, anyway.)

    Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS Mainstream Journalist Over Syria, Aleppo
    http://www.activistpost.com/2016/12/journalist-eva-bartlett-destroys-mainstream-journalist-syria-aleppo.html

    Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:

    "Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:19:19 PM | 20
    If the Pentagon can defy the president on such an important matter, I've gotta ask: Who controls the U.S.'s nukes?

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:21:00 PM | 21
    If Trump's acolytes owe primary allegiance to Mammon, could that mean that they do not owe allegiance to Mars?

    blues | Dec 21, 2016 5:48:18 PM | 22
    Dear President Barack Obama:

    Please fire Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter. I'm too old to get many other Christmas gifts this year.

    Thank you for your kind attention,

    blues

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 5:54:50 PM | 23
    Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.

    ALberto | Dec 21, 2016 6:30:28 PM | 24
    b,

    Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck attacks???

    Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.

    lysias | Dec 21, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 25
    I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video. Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone these days.

    I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.

    Nobody | Dec 21, 2016 7:15:30 PM | 26
    Check out George Webb he's on to it. He should collaborate with b https://youtu.be/3-BYdDRbug0

    WorldBLee | Dec 21, 2016 7:27:10 PM | 27
    Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.

    William Mcdonald | Dec 21, 2016 7:37:16 PM | 28
    The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference. It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying the CIC, what a message to the world!

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:38:09 PM | 29
    b,
    The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
    Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon. He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.

    Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup against the POTUS.

    I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.

    @17 danny801

    Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.

    @20 lysias

    i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.

    @22 blues

    agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA

    ben | Dec 21, 2016 7:42:34 PM | 30
    psycho @ 18 said " IMO It sure looks to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.

    IMO, you're right.

    Trump will not be the second coming. Just another corporate lackie.

    Thanks again b, for the therapy....

    james | Dec 21, 2016 7:43:56 PM | 31
    todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...

    "QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?

    MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal agency has a different view --

    jfl | Dec 21, 2016 7:46:59 PM | 32
    on the new peace negotiation team ..

    Iran, Russia, Turkey start bid to solve Syria crisis diplomatically: Zarif


    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.

    Turkish Army, rebels suffer 50+ casualties in failed Al-Bab assault: Al-Amaq


    According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.

    The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.

    For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab; however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.

    Turkish-backed rebels torture, execute civilian in northern Aleppo


    Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was reported dead after being brutally tortured.

    The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.

    The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).


    ... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey, and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 9:15:46 PM | 33
    Reading this, I am confused.

    What happened to CIA vs. FBI & Pentagon?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?

    rhw007 | Dec 21, 2016 9:47:01 PM | 34
    We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies. https://mycommonsenseparty.com

    chipnik | Dec 21, 2016 10:44:52 PM | 35
    "The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off 1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018 Recession."

    Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 10:48:52 PM | 36
    Steve | Dec 21, 2016 3:37:44 PM | 9

    "deceived a European NATO ally..." Denmark is run by bastards , so they need not be deceived to participate in the criminal act. Same as Australia .

    Duplicitous, deceitful, disingenuous, subservient vassal governments of Bastards ... indeed.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 21, 2016 10:52:59 PM | 37
    I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
    The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.

    Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's decisions

    This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this bungled deal just a delaying action?

    Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?

    Outraged | Dec 21, 2016 11:00:50 PM | 38
    @ Danny801 | Dec 21, 2016 4:54:22 PM | 17

    How about Harry Truman and Doug Macarthur ?

    Um, no, actually, Truman publicly knifed Doug ... hm, so yes, Obama, the Greatest Presidential sock-puppet ever ?

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russia: The Old-New Official Enemy

    Dec 21, 2016 | www.fff.org
    by Jacob G. Hornberger December 15, 2016

    It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.

    Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry. When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.

    That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union, which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in Moscow.

    A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood the United States.

    There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's neck from only 90 miles away.

    And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.

    Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets, influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being kept safe from the communists.

    Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure, which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic processes of the American people.

    One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.

    What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American people?

    Kennedy was considered a neophyte and an incompetent by the national-security establishment, not to mention an immoral adulterous philanderer who was even sleeping with the girlfriend of a Mafia don. What Kennedy didn't realize, the Pentagon and the CIA believed, was that it was impossible for the United States and the communist world to live in peaceful coexistence. This was a fight to the finish. Kennedy was being lulled, perhaps even blackmailed, into surrendering America to the Reds. He was considered a traitor, a betrayer, and the epitome of naďve. (See: JFK's War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne; The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger; Regime Change: The Kennedy Assassination by Jacob Hornberger; The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger; and CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley.)

    Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued. The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up. The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare state parasites continued soaring.

    Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep state.

    Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations, for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.

    U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S. Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.

    Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.

    The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at the same time.

    That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and, implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO - to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.

    With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.

    Share This Article (0)

    [Dec 20, 2016] Its official the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    Dec 20, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    It's official: the US is funding Middle-East jihadists!

    globinfo freexchange

    We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders, for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!

    Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:

    Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be thrown in jail.

    Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .

    A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.' The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'. This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .

    We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .

    I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists.

    Speaking on CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in the Middle East:

    The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:

    We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar ...

    Speaking on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist, regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:

    SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind of have the same position on Syria?

    GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years since I have been in Congress. And it's one...

    SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?

    GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.

    This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov The Power of Nyet

    Notable quotes:
    "... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
    "... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
    July 26. 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    [ O poder do "năo" ]
    [ Het vermogen van "njet" ]
    [ Síla „Nět" ]
    [ Le pouvoir du " Niet " ]

    The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

    In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet." The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant! Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

    The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition. The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation, was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says: "Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again." Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."

    What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade

    The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated. If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking. Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.

    But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer, the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins the whole ambiance!

    The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.

    It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding "nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.

    NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT

    Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the "dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.

    The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their station in life.

    Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many inner devils. We won't be missed.

    Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT

    A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!

    Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT

    This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the response... NYET!

    Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT

    Nice...

    Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)

    http://sevendaynews.com/2016/06/17/putin-has-lavrov-compared-with-gromyko/

    Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT

    I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to show their unity to the cause.

    Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT

    I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.

    Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT

    Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"

    Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT

    BRILLIANT!!!

    Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT

    d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
    Excellent.
    There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)

    Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT

    This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"

    Mark said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT

    At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.

    Roger said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT

    I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise. Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be vigilant always.

    Bruno said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT

    Loved.

    And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.

    Unknown said... Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT

    "Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
    ...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"

    Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four letter word".

    What a tag team!

    Marty said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT

    I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion, the are being laughed at, even by the American people.

    I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.

    Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.

    This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.

    Roger said... Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT

    Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to do this."

    You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't fathom it.

    But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.

    For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or "Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and "Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.

    Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the will nor the reach to make it otherwise.

    Happy Unicorn said...

    Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals."

    Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No, because we hate you."
    Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT

    flops said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT

    In good wronglish:

    There's America, Americans, USA.

    And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name given to our land by the older people.

    Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave attacking our countries.

    We, the united states of...? What?

    "Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!

    Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
    When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That' what we are.

    Roger said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT

    HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.

    What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think".

    The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs, on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.

    I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America.

    You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.

    Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well, there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and treasuries are emptied.

    And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms. Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin', gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.

    Robert T. said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT

    It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.

    A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably, begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then start to follow Russia's footsteps?

    Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT

    Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!

    Dec 16, 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha! I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from any and all levity and mirth.

    You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.

    There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way, because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder. This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor, I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for schizophrenia first?

    And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.

    Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.

    My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and wish to become part of Russia again.

    So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted, turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents, it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon, whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians, kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they downloaded from their friends on Facebook.

    From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about "Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.

    This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced, let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain? Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.

    But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .

    The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes Sir, Tovarishch Putin!

    Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation, depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and on But who can stop them?

    And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.

    Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.

    The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.

    Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays, and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.

    And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed, under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance, sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?

    Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now? Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the "Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison, let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.

    1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.

    2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall. And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements. For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.

    3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.

    4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest, possibly escalating into a civil war.

    The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!

    There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals, because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead try to coax them into learning to control it.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Tancredo Would Republican Establishment Use Impeachment to Block Trump Agenda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
    "... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
    "... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
    "... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
    "... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
    "... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
    "... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.

    I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.

    Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First goals.

    Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural landscape.

    But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.

    Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.

    If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet, you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House.

    What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda? There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

    On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.

    Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so.

    And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.

    So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement: about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce those laws.

    Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.

    The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement. And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist, open borders status quo.

    The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher, it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.

    What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield of congressional committee votes.

    Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Nickolas Kristof again demonstrates the level of neocons panic and his MIC lobbyist credentials

    What a despicable MIC stooge...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
    "... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
    "... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    From Donald Trump The Russian Poodle - The New York Times

    In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."

    In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.

    The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.

    Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.

    Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.

    In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.

    Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.

    Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.

    Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."

    Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?

    Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.

    [Dec 18, 2016] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russias alleged election help for Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
    "... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
    www.sott.net
    Reprinted from RT

    FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

    FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

    "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

    "The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

    Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 18, 2016] Neocon Panic and Agony

    Dec 18, 2016 | www.unz.com
    There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its "deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are truly terrified.

    The home front

    One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White House: they have

    That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war. Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA" issue.

    Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that they can succeed or what their true objective is.

    My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.

    What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received the order of " Friend of Russia " from the hands of Vladimir Putin himself!

    Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.

    I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded everybody that " these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that as soon as Trump take control heads will roll at the CIA .

    [Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but, frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].

    One the external front

    On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article about how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica . Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.

    ORDER IT NOW

    The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz, etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says that Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

    It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies (at least once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?

    Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo, making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).

    The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US" at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead coalition looks strong in Aleppo.

    Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA: not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of defeating Daesh in Iraq.

    Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed, while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian operations in Syria.

    Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.

    The countdown to January 20 th

    It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.

    In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20 th , 2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented people could come up with.

    As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel Lobby gang by choosing a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.

    Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.

    And yet, I still have a small hope.

    My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of " de-neoconization " of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of " making America great again ". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama Administration once McCain was defeated

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] The US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of irredeemable evil Powers named

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
    "... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
    "... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:27 am
    What a fucking slag!

    (ad hominem fully intended!)

    In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions of her own country.

    "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country."

    "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.

    "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.

    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:36 am
    The above translated Churkin quotes are from CNN.

    Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:

    "Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.

    Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States, who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.

    [You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]

    marknesop , December 14, 2016 at 6:17 am
    Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
    Lyttenburgh , December 14, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Mother Samantha – the patron saint of the moderate jihadis

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 10:43 am
    I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives, sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies of the "Exceptional Nation"?
    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:57 am
    Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her own country?
    Northern Star , December 14, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Halabja, ****Rwanda,*** Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western.

    Ummmm but the USA through the machinations of susan rice ..the corrupt whore/lackey of Bubba had a hand in Rwanda

    and let's not forget the French connection:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38152791

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm
    Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate perpetrators were not western actors.
    Jen , December 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging rights among the Washington social set.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Something about jungoism of some US politicians

    The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them, and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"

    Hillary Clinton
    "No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."

    Hillary Clinton
    "We came, we saw, he died!"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria... that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."

    Hillary Clinton
    "The world will not waver, Assad must go"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
    "The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."

    Hillary Clinton
    "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War"

    Hillary Clinton
    "[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria. ... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"

    Hillary Clinton

    "ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost, aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."

    [Dec 10, 2016] Possible connection between Ukraian Diaspora in the USA and

    Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII. They are adamantly anti-Russian.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
    "... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
    "... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
    "... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
    "... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
    "... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
    "... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
    "... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
    "... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
    "... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
    "... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
    "... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
    "... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
    "... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
    "... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
    "... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
    "... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
    "... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
    "... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
    "... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
    "... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
    "... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
    "... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
    "... and/or incontinence ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Kovpak December 9, 2016 at 3:45 am

    Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot. As I have recently written on my blog , I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."

    That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers (quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).

    Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.

    As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.

    Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day), and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.

    ... ... ...

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.

    dk December 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    "You're a poseur!"
    "No, you're poser!"

    The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden of identity, of individual life.

    My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment, in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak; both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure of subjective evaluation).

    I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers

    No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn, not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement. Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them

    And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.

    And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting" external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example, the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane etc. element to the Syrian opposition.

    flora December 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is interesting.

    Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a long and embattled history there.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:17 am

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,

    Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism.

    And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Seconded.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.

    KRB December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting.

    The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.

    Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!" There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away. There is no "but" and no excuse, period.

    "Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

    Martin Finnucane December 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    +1

    My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over, and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?

    I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin, right?

    Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment was a pre-masticated one-and-done.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII.

    AD December 9, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places, but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.

    The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"

    Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels. But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies" and "free" media.

    Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright? I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the lives of the natives. It does not.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko "

    That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying to outrun Roscoe.

    All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.

    If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in other countries.

    I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.

    RMcHewn December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.

    Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.

    Damian December 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!

    Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over

    The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.

    The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day.

    Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight?

    Young Ex-Pat December 9, 2016 at 11:28 am

    "Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented)."

    You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

    And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution" was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly, says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 - Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from Poroshenko.

    I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself. Glory to the heroes indeed.

    p.s. "Russia Without the BS" is awful.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that the local Nazis spout.

    That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent military units.

    Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.

    Foppe December 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi variety'.

    Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus- undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.

    (Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses" is part of the problem.)

    Gareth December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The whole Fake News world is a house of mirrors:

    http://www.stopfake.org/en/stopfakenews-98-eng-with-jim-kovpak/

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know, there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada).

    Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko).

    Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U. politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera – but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.

    There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.

    (2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times – I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia). Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.

    (3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack, with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).

    Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment – they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points

    I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you.
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
    KRB December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.

    Rhondda December 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    It was patently obvious from his comment that he's a pro shill but very good to have the proof. Thanks, KRB.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already, which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.

    Eddie Anderson December 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations, but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries

    Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.

    What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.

    Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics to the public.

    Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

    Ignacio December 9, 2016 at 4:22 am

    This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!

    Benedict@Large December 9, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?), it doesn't look good.

    Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?

    notabanker December 9, 2016 at 7:56 am

    Ahhh, but it's not money they accumulate, its power. And time is their only constraint. This is what they do.

    Jim Haygood December 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

    William Banzai7 on "Prop or Nuts." Hillary's "Childen of the Rainbow" button (look carefully) is to die for.

    https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/601/30710973103_365b8e0b4d_b.jpg

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 9:00 am

    There's a crock of something at the end of that rainbow, but I doubt very much that it contains any gold.

    ambrit December 9, 2016 at 11:07 am

    I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions," new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was shut down really because there was too much competition.)

    Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption

    And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill.

    seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.

    It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine.

    Disturbed Voter December 9, 2016 at 6:45 am

    No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable, that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy, that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the link in yesterday's Water Cooler.

    Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 7:01 am

    and/or incontinence

    I'm looking at you, Soros!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

    Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
    "... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
    "... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
    "... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
    "... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
    "... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
    "... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
    "... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
    "... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
    "... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
    "... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
    "... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
    "... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
    "... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
    "... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
    "... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
    "... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
    "... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
    "... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
    "... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
    "... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
    "... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
    "... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
    "... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
    "... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
    "... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
    "... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
    "... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
    "... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
    "... 'CIA Team B' ..."
    "... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
    "... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
    "... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
    "... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
    "... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

    It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

    So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

    Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

    Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

    Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

    My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

    In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

    Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

    chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

    I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

    Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

    dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
    First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

    I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

    American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

    not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

    i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

    with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

    these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

    Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

    The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

    They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

    sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

    "I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

    Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

    kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

    Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    "Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

    And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

    Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

    The working man's choices.....very limited.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

    "Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

    If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

    There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

    We've seen the MO many times now;

    The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

    Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

    sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

    Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

    Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

    Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

    2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

    Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

    Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

    All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

    Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

    It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

    DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

    The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

    The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

    You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

    ... ... ..

    G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

    What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

    Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

    As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

    Interesting times , more and more so.

    66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

    But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

    max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

    And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

    HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

    Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

    Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

    This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

    https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

    dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

    This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

    The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

    Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

    Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

    Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

    TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

    If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

    Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

    Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

    The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

    mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    As reported on infowars:
    On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

    Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

    Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

    Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

    And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
    especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

    As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

    Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

    So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

    Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

    seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

    The Reverse Blockade

    "Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

    that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

    Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

    The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

    Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

    I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

    The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

    What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

    Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

    madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

    jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

    northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

    Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

    I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

    Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

    Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

    It is in the Alinsky handbook.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

    jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

    CIA = Deep State.

    Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

    Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

    brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

    Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
    The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

    Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

    A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

    Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

    Rein in the executive and the CIA

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

    This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

    At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

    Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

    The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

    Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

    small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

    At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

    As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

    Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

    marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

    what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

    Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

    I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

    In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

    after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

    and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

    CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

    The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

    However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

    Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

    The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

    The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

    This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

    YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

    This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

    Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

    So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

    Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

    It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

    He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

    flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
    I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
    +1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
    jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
    Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
    YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
    My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

    There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

    blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
    Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
    YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
    Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
    ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
    From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

    Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

    brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

    Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

    [Dec 06, 2016] What price the new democracy Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

    Dec 06, 2016 | independent.co.uk
    &Stephen Foley

    November 17, 2011 | The Independent

    While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone's corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

    The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

    This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

    It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

    Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

    Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."

    This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

    Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman's bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country's financial policies.

    With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank's two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

    Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman's UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.

    Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

    Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

    The bank's traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece's unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

    Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: "It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher."

    When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn't involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

    It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a "voluntary" haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent's big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

    "My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?" says Simon Johnson. "It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same."

    So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that Italian government bonds will not default.

    When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

    The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent. Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries' debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

    Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

    [Dec 06, 2016] Cheney, the Neocons and China by GARY LEUPP

    If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
    Notable quotes:
    "... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
    "... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
    "... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
    "... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.)

    Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel.

    Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.

    If conflict with China is inevitable,

    Because

    (1) that vision fits in perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and

    (2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."

    They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as "an answer to the Holocaust."

    They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy."

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at: [email protected]

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    [Dec 05, 2016] Spanish civil war nostalgics join fight alongside Ukrainian rebels by Kazbek Basayev

    Notable quotes:
    "... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
    "... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
    "... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
    "... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
    "... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
    Aug 08, 2014 | Yahoo/Reuters

    Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels, proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.

    Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit fighting Ukrainian troops.

    "I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.

    That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.

    Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican side in Spain.

    More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War.

    The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.

    Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia and natives of Serbia.

    Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.

    Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".

    Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this."

    A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters. An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available for comment.

    (Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

    blazo 6 months ago

    Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.

    Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions, Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings. Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades. Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.

    The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question of hours.... .

    Ricardo 6 months ago

    Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences to their country.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. ..."
    "... "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world." ..."
    "... Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. ..."
    "... "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." ..."
    "... He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." ..."
    "... By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). ..."
    "... The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. ..."
    www.theatlantic.com

    The United States might claim a broader democracy than those that prevailed in Europe. On the other hand, European states mobilized their populations with an efficiency that dazzled some Americans (notably Theodore Roosevelt) and appalled others (notably Wilson). The magazine founded by pro-war intellectuals in 1914, The New Republic, took its title precisely because its editors regarded the existing American republic as anything but the hope of tomorrow.

    Yet as World War I entered its third year-and the first year of Tooze's story-the balance of power was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to American buyers-denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. "By the end of 1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory," computes Tooze (relative to America's estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today's money).

    That staggering quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military production; American farmers planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision to commit so much to one side's victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S. government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war entirely. He famously preferred a "peace without victory." The trouble was that by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain and France had grown-to borrow a phrase from the future-too big to fail.

    Tooze's portrait of Woodrow Wilson is one of the most arresting novelties of his book. His Wilson is no dreamy idealist. The president's animating idea was an American exceptionalism of a now-familiar but then-startling kind. His Republican opponents-men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root-wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain, France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as "isolationists" because they mistrusted the Wilson's League of Nations project. That's a big mistake. They doubted the League because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led United States was "sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe."

    Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown, in Tooze's words, into "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world."

    Wilson hoped to deploy this emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war.

    What went wrong? "When all is said and done," Tooze writes, "the answer must be sought in the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese [leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security. Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order." And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do-because doing so implied too much change at home for them: "At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future."

    Widen the view, however, and the "forgotten depression" takes on a broader meaning as one of the most ominous milestones on the world's way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way.

    Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country's most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany.

    Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France-and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well-it could not hope to pay its American debts.

    Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France and Britain.

    Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world's biggest and richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent, and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21.

    But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression in 1920.

    Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred in late 1918-early 1919. "Within four weeks of the Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled $2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented 3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product," he observes. Even this understates the shock, because it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again.

    As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they'd experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate, made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920 was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression "cure itself." U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered-just as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82.

    But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough. One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again.

    ... ... ...

    The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world's leading creditor, the world's largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value-and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars.

    Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.

    The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America's determination to restore a dollar "as good as gold" not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks.

    Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren't willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.

    That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany's savers also tidied up the country's balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.

    Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States.

    ... ... ...

    "The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it." Thus might Hitler's war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler's ultimate target. "In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower," Tooze writes.

    "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States.

    The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany's equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples-a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.

    Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. "In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany," he writes. "Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich."

    Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary "South Africa, Iran and Tunisia," wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first.

    The reckless desperation of Hitler's war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler's empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born).

    On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.

    How the Great War Shaped the World

    [Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
    "... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

    Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

    His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

    Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

    Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

    Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

    "The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

    Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

    Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

    Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

    Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

    We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

    Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

    There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

    Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

    [Dec 05, 2016] BuzzFeed Exposes Corporate Super Courts That Can Overrule Government

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate
    Notable quotes:
    "... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
    "... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
    "... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
    "... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | Back to (our) Future

    BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called "Secrets of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."

    Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special "corporate courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.

    The 2014 post "Corporate Courts - A Big Red Flag On "Trade" Agreements" explained the origin and rationale for these corporate courts:

    Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.

    Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers" and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they have "earned."

    To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic" from which they need special protection.

    "Trade" Deals Bypass Borders

    Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.

    Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    Secrets of a Global Super Court

    BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world economy. These provisions set up "corporate courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries in the "trade" deals.

    Part One, "Inside The Global "Club" That Helps Executives Escape Their Crimes," describes, "A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment."

    In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."

    [. . .]

    Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

    Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as "the Kremlin's banker."

    One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said, "You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot."

    Part Two, "The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."

    Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.

    [. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.

    Part Three, "To Bankers, It's Not Just A Court System, It's A Gold Mine," exposes how "Financial companies have figured out how to turn a controversial global legal system to their own very profitable advantage."

    Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business: prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.

    The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances, would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.

    ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million. Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."

    David Dayen explains this last point, in "The Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Super Court That We're Not Talking About": "Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill."

    But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

    Part Four of the great BuzzFeed series, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," is expected to be published later this week.

    PCCC Statement

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement on the ISDS provisions in TPP:

    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage. We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.

    "It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting political harm to Democrats with voters."

    [Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
    "... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    " http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

    A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

    1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
    2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
    3. Russia-China on the march.
    4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

    http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

    [Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

    In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

    On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

    However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

    Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

    What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

    When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

    Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

    flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    +1

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. +1

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    "We've gone too far."

    Whaddaya mean, "we"?

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The imperial "We."
    I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

    JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Good comment .

    "What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

    Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

    abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

    Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    And his post-presidential money small .

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

    My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

    John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

    Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

    "It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    Obama did back down.

    NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

    ..oh..that includes Kristof too

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

    We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

    Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Well said!

    HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
    "... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
    "... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

    There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

    National Defense

    This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

    In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

    Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

    The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

    And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

    So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

    ISDS

    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

    What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

    (More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

    Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

    The Political State of Play

    All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

    Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

    Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

    [OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

    I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

    So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

    So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

    Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

    So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

    (The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

    Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

    Passing TPP after the Inaugural

    After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

    Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

    Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

    What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

    Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

    Conclusion

    I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    NOTE

    [1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

    [2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

    To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

    He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

    This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

    In other words, side deals.

    [3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

    [Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
    "... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
    "... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

    The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

    In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

    These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

    silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

    "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trump campaign is a similar to Brexit crusade by grassroots activists against big banks and global political insiders . by those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
    "... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    ...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and oddsmakers wrong as well.

    This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never staid campaign rallies.

    The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.

    Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking forward to Farage's speech.

    The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as "CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.

    Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton.

    "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it."

    "I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee. "It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Trump: Obama and Hillary Created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
    "... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
    "... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
    "... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
    www.infowars.com

    Allen Highsmith 7 months ago

    We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!

    ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!

    At least Trump is telling part of the truth.

    Two of a Kind Turds 7 months ago
    We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They know they have a get out of jail free pass.
    Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
    Elapoides Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.

    I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Bernie Sanders launches presidential campaign

    Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force commanded by those elites."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
    "... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
    "... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
    May 26, 2015 | http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/26/bernie-sanders-launches-presidential-campaign
    Nad Gough
    This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?

    So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.

    lutesongs
    Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the one.
    BabyLyon
    The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
    PhilippeOrlando

    This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason 'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
    Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
    I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have little chance of achieving it.
    patimac54
    Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most will not have experienced previously.
    If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
    amorezu
    A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with living in a de-facto oligarchy.
    Observer453
    Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama recently described himself.

    Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me up.

    jdanforth
    Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...

    Doro Wynant jdanforth

    Except:

    1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.

    2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same category.

    3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality -- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.

    4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas. Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?

    Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!

    Jon Phillips

    If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?

    300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........

    RickyRat

    This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!

    Bertmax RickyRat

    That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame. Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country. People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.

    Doro Wynant Needsmorecow

    This site links you to legislation he sponsored or co-sponsored, to his bio, and to his website:
    https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-/bernie_sanders.S000033

    Chris Plante
    A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?

    He's probably doing much better among real people.

    RickyRat Chris Plante
    There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
    Jeannie Parker
    I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign are coming from across the political spectrum.

    The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
    This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.

    No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.

    Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.

    No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to the highest office of our Land. Cheers.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Neoliberalism and Why its Bad for All of Us

    The full version of this paper with a complete bibliography is also available electronically.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources, responsibility without power, power without structure. ..."
    "... "See-Judge-Act" ..."
    "... resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising and very powerful status quo. ..."
    "... And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at least, is to close them down! ..."
    Mar 07, 2015 | Diocese of Liverpool
    Introduction: When is an economy not an economy? When it's a caravan park! So What is It? Several key elements to what Neoliberalism is: Behind these features are a series of underlying assumed principles – an ideology of neo-liberalism: 2

    So What's Wrong with it?

    1. It is internally contradictory
      • There is no such thing as a free market
      • Even the original neoliberals recognise this – competition regulates the market – there is no one view of what "competitive" is
      • The ordoliberals certainly recognise it – role of government to create the perfectly competitive market
      • The view taken of competition based on price tends to monopolies, a "race to the bottom," and uniformity (Amazon, Sky, Apple )
    2. Its effects are not as the theory predicted, and have often been damaging:
      • There has been no "trickle down" effect of wealth (in fact, wealth has redistributed upwards)
      • It has entailed much "creative destruction" of institutional frameworks and powers, divisions of labour social relations, attachments to the land and habits of the heart.‟ (David Harvey, Short History of Neo-Liberalism, p 3)
      • It has pushed, and is pushing, the reach of the market into ever more spheres of human life, „the saturation of the state, political culture and the social with market rationality.‟ (Wendy Brown: American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and De-Democratization (Political Theory 34 (2006), p 695)
    3. It has a view of human beings as 'specks of human capital,' who can be 'plugged in' to markets of various kinds, (or who plug themselves in)
      • the hero of neoliberalism is the entrepreneur – we are all becoming more and more required to be „entrepreneurs of the self‟ – to invest in ourselves/make something of ourselves, „cultivate and care for‟ ourselves and, increasingly – measure our performance.
      • The caravan park analogy –we are required to „plug ourselves in‟ – to pay the price of doing so, and to accept the cost.
      • Our „belonging‟ becomes passive plugging in – rather than active participation.
      • Traditional forms of solidarity are wiped out.
      • Specks of human capital are eminently sacrificable, even if they have done all the „right things‟ – there are no guarantees, and individuals are expected to bear the risk of their entrepreneurial activity themselves (investing many hours in „training‟ and „upskilling,‟ often with no financial or institutional support and with no guarantee of better employment practices – i.e. gain (more skilled workforce) is privatized and risk is distributed downwards, labour is bound and capital released.
      • Austerity politics is the natural outcome of this – people are told virtue is sacrifice for the sake of a productive economy, but with no protection.
      • Despite opposition to „big government,‟ isolated and vulnerable individuals are eminently governable, subject to new forms of power whilst having smaller and
      • smaller spaces in which to resist it. People are easily integrated into a project that is quite prepared to sacrifice them.
    So why is it bad for all of us? So what is to be done? Justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness quietness and trust forever. My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, in quite resting places. (Isaiah 32.16-18)

    Further Reading:

    The full version of this paper with a complete bibliography will be available electronically after the conference.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Much-disputed Iranian nuclear bomb

    An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
    "... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
    "... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
    "... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
    "... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
    "... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
    Sep 22, 2005 | www.washingtonpost.com
    That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy, debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this "taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.

    I wrote about this subject under the title, Nuclear Israel , back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering. But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept, though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ).

    Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom

    Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

    By Ray McGovern

    "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

    "(Short pause)

    "'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

    "Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

    ( The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

    For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime change."

    But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.

    According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency , former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for him.

    If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.

    It Can Get Worse

    "The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

    The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

    But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

    Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud. One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

    What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

    George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

    During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.

    Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

    Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

    The Return of the Neocons

    In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

    Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.

    Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner rather than later.

    Next Stop, Iran

    When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."

    Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.

    Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

    So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

    Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

    So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

    Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

    Is alleged to have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

    Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.

    If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and vice president can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."

    US-Israel Nexus

    The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to hit Israel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed, American defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

    In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

    As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

    When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

    To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

    Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Is the Nub

    The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

    On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"

    The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

    A Nuclear-Free Middle East

    How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

    The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

    That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

    Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.

    Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence

    Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons? The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.

    It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance" it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area. Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through -- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take that line. Rather

    "Israel Is Our Ally."

    Or so said our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?

    Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

    An earlier American warned:

    "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )

    In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or distorted in our domesticated media.

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers. He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Copyright 2005 Ray McGovern

    [Dec 04, 2016] Merkel in Jeopardy: Germanys European Hegemony, Refugees and Upcoming Elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". ..."
    "... Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her. ..."
    "... See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere! ..."
    "... I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press ..."
    "... In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses. ..."
    "... Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. ..."
    "... The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC. ..."
    "... Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult. ..."
    "... Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria. ..."
    "... As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding. ..."
    "... who had already reached Hungary ..."
    "... on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further. ..."
    "... she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision. ..."
    "... Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore ..."
    "... EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already! ..."
    "... I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy. ..."
    "... Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). ..."
    "... The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West. ..."
    "... Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either. ..."
    Mar 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin

    The inexorable political decline of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as her traditional opponents, the Social Democrats, is gathering pace. Upcoming elections in three German federal states on 13 March have given this process a considerable fillip. Both Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic Party and the Social Democrats are expecting some harrowing results.

    It seems that each new crisis that Ms Merkel creates is more formidable than its predecessor. Her mishandling of the refugee question – nationally and internationally – is making her conflict with Greece last year appear like a festival of love and unity.

    ... ... ...

    For the Social Democrats under the leadership of Sigmar Gabriel, who seems more concerned with lining up some well remunerated jobs in advance of his retirement from politics, there is a bleak future. Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". Following the debacles of the social democrats in Spain and their compatriots in the Republic of Ireland, who appear to have gone into a death spin, the German social democrats seem to be following in their footsteps. The party will probably struggle to receive 20 percent of the vote at the next national election in a year's time.

    Domestically Ms Merkel's party and the Social Democrats have tried to save themselves by changing the German laws regarding refugees. Nations that were until recently considered warzones or systematically violating human rights have been declared "safe countries of origin", making refugees from these countries "economic migrants" to facilitate fast track extradition. Benefits for refugees are being slashed, as well not permitting refugees to bring their families to join them in Germany.

    The situation became palpably absurd, as Ms Merkel declared that refugees have to integrate themselves in German society or leave, only then to declare that she expects them to depart as soon as the conflicts in their nations have terminated.

    Ms Merkel's real hope is purchasing the acquiescence of Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stop all refugees at his own border, thus relocating the source of the current political conflict out of Europe and into Turkey. Erdoğan, who is fighting a war against the Kurds, would appreciate the billions of Euros on offer, as well as the EU members of NATO turning a blind eye to his pact with ISIS. Let us have no illusions: Erdoğan is an anti-democratic and authoritarian, with nor respect for human rights. He is on the threshold of becoming a dictator. He knows he has all the political trumps in his hand in negotiations with Ms Merkel and will exact a commensurate price. This is only the most recent juncture in a political disaster that spiralled out of control months ago.

    Add to this the newly created mission of NATO using a fleet of warships to stop the flow of refugees from Turkey to Greece, while negotiations continue with Erdoğan. It is cynically claimed that the NATO force is there to arrest those smuggling the refugees. This is absurd. As everyone knows, the smugglers put the refugees in dilapidated boats and send them off on their own. They are not cruise operators. Thus the NATO ships are in effect sending back refugees, many of them women and children, to Turkey. Is this what NATO was created for? Where were the NATO ships, as thousands of refugees were drowning in the Mediterranean?

    The whole affair, as with Greece before it, has become a disgrace for Europe. I doubt it would surprise anyone, should negotiations with Turkey fail, and Ms Merkel announced that her government was in talks with ISIS to assist in stemming the refugee threat to European Civilisation.

    German leaders are infallible, so there is no way back for Ms Merkel, although there is not much backtracking left to do. The upcoming elections in Germany could well decide her political fate in Germany. The Christian Union would have to scramble to find a new leader for the upcoming national elections in 2017, although that is not really a problem. The party has enough mediocre politicians like Ms Merkel in the wings, just as capable of following the policy dictated by German and international business interests. Germany's domestic political landscape is in flux, as in most of Europe, which makes any predictions concerning the future precarious.

    As for Ms Merkel, she will have been a victim of endemic German hubris, not content with being the "Mutti" of Germany and the iron fist of Europe, but wanting to be a saint as well (and pocket the Nobel Peace Prize). Unfortunately – as always – others have paid and will pay the price: the thousands of refugees who will have died trying to reach the shelter of Europe, as well as those that make it, but will become victims of European racism and greed, and especially of the corrupt European political class. The great hope are the millions of decent Europeans, who know what solidarity is and value the Humanitarianism that was born here.

    No one in particular , March 2, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Well, to be read with more than a pinch of salt . and I have too little time to depict it properly.

    1. Merkel has continued her lawless activity, started with the Greek bailout 1.0 (to save French banks, Sarkozy and German banks, in that order) with the refugee crisis. I do not know what her motives for opening the borders were, but not to close them in time was a fatal error;

    especially for the German democratic system, because there was neither the will nor the instruments to stop her. What a blow to the cherished "basic law", exposed as an empty shell. A poisoned arrow, slowly permeating the state of Germany, questioning the functionality of the entire German democracy.

    2. Possibly a blessing in disguise, the unfolding refugee crisis (a mixture of war refugees and economic migration) has exposed "EU solidarity" or "Merkel leads Europe" for what it always was – the periphery needed (and needs) the German credit card to maintain the appearance of solvency – so they temporarily bowed to the inevitable, but out of selfish interest, not overarching interest in "solidarity"; which was a one-way street, always. So the lack of support for her should have been no surprise for anybody, but Berlin still manages to keep up the illusion. This was fatally complemented by the hubris not to inform anybody before the deed, thus giving all the uninformed union members of the feeling of second or third best . not the best basis to ask for help.

    3. Unbeknownst to any non-German speaker, there is a "fifths" power emerging, something akin to a "speech police" – were any – and I mean any – criticism or resistance is labeled immediately as "geistige Brandstiftung" (roughly mental arson), and a stereotype for right wing Nazi idea's. A lot of words are becoming unusable [emergency,unlawful and similar], unless you want to be labeled as "populist", right wing or worse. Consequently, there is no unbiased discussion possible, anywhere, so a calamitous silence becomes ever more prevalent by the day. Note, that Facebook is now policed by the subsidiary of Bertelsmann, a big German publishing house, to remove "incitement" and similar posts.

    4. Slowly some parts of the German main stream press are waking up to the fallacies caused by the blanket invitation – the refugees coming are more or less unskilled, and thus quick integration into the German labor market is improbable, to say the least.

    5. However, the political establishment, i.e. the parties currently represented in parliament, have lost any connection to what the populace is thinking (quietly, as per 3.) and a mutiny is brewing even in normally patient and middle of the road guys; fueled by the wishful thinking of all will be well. And the muddling through will continue, unless some force outside of control of Berlin will stop it, thus exposing the inability of the "state" to keep a semblance of democracy and to govern within the framework of the "basic law", as the parliament and the press both failed to stop Merkel.

    Honestly, I am not sure what to wish for, the continuation or the exposure of harsh reality.

    Damian , March 2, 2016 at 9:11 am

    "there is no unbiased discussion possible"

    Politically Correct is an intellectual Gulag -- everywhere

    same in the US of A - the politically correct speech game with Trump is now a badge of courage

    Keith , March 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Same here (UK)

    Though the politically correct stuff seems to have backed off a bit recently.

    Perhaps my comments about the PC Thought Police in the online Guardian did some good (wishful thinking).

    Also, comments on "PC Top Trumps" as homosexual and female rights clash with those of other religions.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 2, 2016 at 9:34 am

    About your first point, Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her.

    She is a Christian Democrat. She is mediocre by definition. I doubt she could ever conceive of her plans going wrong.

    Gio Bruno , March 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere!

    PlutoniumKun , March 2, 2016 at 5:34 am

    This is one of the reasons I love NC so much – nice to see something in-depth and suitably skeptical about a country which despite its huge importance is rarely reported in real detail in the mainstream English language press. There is often much better reporting of China or Japan than Germany for some odd reason.

    I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press – even people from the left seem to have a sort of grudging admiration and even affection for her. In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses.

    jsn , March 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Agreed, very interesting!

    Does anyone know good english sources regarding Hungary and Orban? They seem to be under the same MSM cloud occluding realistic views of what's happening in Russia. But its hard to tell because information is so thin. If its in the Times, WSJ or FT, it appears on its face to be propaganda simply from the personalization of the country into the leader.

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 11:14 am

    a rotting infrastructure

    Which infrastructure, exactly, is rotting? I agree Germany isn't some kind of luminary leftist paradise. But relative to us Anglo-Americans, things are working rather well there from the perspective of social and built landscape infrastructure.

    PlutoniumKun , March 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Germany has maintained its relatively healthy public sector balance mainly through massive cuts in infrastructural spending. Its not immediately noticeable as a combination of low population growth and high levels of investment in the post war years has left it with a very good historic legacy. But only Spain has a lower level of public investment as a percentage of GDP as this FT article e xplains:

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4fea7fa0-351c-11e4-a2c2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz41gGbFFof

    Its not just transport infrastructure – the power infrastructure is creaking too, with poor interconnectedness across the country. Housing and building stock is visibly deteriorating due to a lack of investment. Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. Germany can get away with this for a decade or more, but eventually the chickens will come home to roost in the form of huge bills as roads and railways will require major investments to make up for the neglect.

    The real problem is even worse than the total investment spend indicates. For reasons I've never fully understood, the German building industry is notoriously bad at controlling spending, so what they do spend is often wasted – the notorious Brandenburg Airport in Berlin being just one example.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/5-billion-euros-costs-increase-again-for-berlin-brandenburg-airport-a-928989.html

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    GDP? I would say it's a good thing Germany spends less on healthcare than we do, not a bad thing. I just don't quite follow where you are going with this. Rotting, creaking, deteriorating, and comparisons to Dell strike me as sensationalizing the situation. With that kind of language, I want to see actual decrepit train stations right now, not a potential problem decades from now. How much capex exactly does Berlin Hauptbahnhof need over the next 5 years?

    It is much easier transiting Germany without a car than the US. Amtrak, for example, has two departures a day from NYC to Chicago (Lakeshore and Capitol), and it will take you 19-21 hours to get there. Deutsche Bahn has 9 departures from Berlin to Frankfurt, and that's only counting morning trains with no train changes on the high speed lines. Or in speed terms, your total all in travel is a little over 80 MPH in Germany with trains leaving regularly and a little over 40 MPH in the US where if you miss your train you get to wait another half day.

    If Germany is rotting, what are the Americans doing?

    PlutoniumKun , March 3, 2016 at 5:34 am

    I'm not sure where you get the comment on healthcare from – I was referring entirely to physical infrastructure. And yes of course, German roads and railways are generally very good, but as that FT article points out, this is almost entirely a legacy of 20th Century investment. And German railways have fallen behind France, Spain and other countries in terms of speed and, most notably, capacity. The problem with not investing consistently in physical infrastructure is that you can get away with it for a while, but when your existing stock starts hitting the end of its 30 or 40 year design life, the bills to keep things going can be very high. A railway line can last pretty much forever if you are constantly working on it to improve and maintain it. Neglect it for a couple of decades and it will start to disintegrate and will need replacing in its entirety.

    I brought up Dell as a well known example of a company which suffered from milking an existing line of products without investing to compete as technology changes. Dell looked healthy and profitable for a long while until eventually their failures caught up. I thought of them because just a few days ago I drove past the empty shell of what was their biggest manufacturing centre. There are plenty of other examples of course.

    washunate , March 3, 2016 at 8:09 am

    "Not as fast as le TGV" and "Dell level failure" strike me as radically different uses of language.

    FT is behind a paywall, so I don't know the nuance of their argument, but this has a tone I have heard in other contexts. The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC.

    Plus, it doesn't jibe with what is available in the English language world about German concerns. The Germans themselves are not that concerned with a lack of megabuildings and the national pride of having the biggest/fastest/whateverest national scale projects. Rather, the infrastructure concerns are primarily about depreciation of local government assets, the small municipal stuff.

    Finally, I thought you were talking about recent changes with Merkel and co. Now you're taking this back many years or decades? Germany has done lots of infrastructure construction over the past couple decades. They have a more equal society than we do. They have more efficient healthcare than we do. These things all directly contradict widespread, catastrophic failure. That's the connection. Even if there is room for improvement (which of course, there always is), there is much less systemic failure compared to USUK.

    visitor , March 2, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I repeat what I have already stated in a comment to a previous article: Merkel and her government did not invite refugees to Germany. In fact, every measure taken so far had only one objective: keep as many of those refugees as far away from Germany as possible. Hence:

    1) Dublin: the rule that refugees must remain and ask for asylum in the first country of entry to the EU - which for obvious geographical reasons happens never to be Germany.

    2) Africa: (1) collapses under the massive flows of desperate people? Then bribe African countries to prevent migrants from moving to Europe.

    3) Turkey: (2) fails? Then bribe Turkey to keep refugees in camps and prevent them from crossing the Mediterranean.

    4) Hotspots: (3) is taking too much time? Then make sure that refugees are blocked at the periphery of the EU - in Italy and Greece.

    5) Quotas: re-distributed those refugees stuck in (4) and who want to go to Germany or Sweden to somewhere else, away from Germany.

    6) Countries of origin: declare countries as safe, making it possible to deport refugees quickly.

    7) Subsidiary protection: if (6) does not work, ensure that asylum seekers are not treated as full-fledged refugees, making them easier to deport once war abates.

    8) If (7) does not work and refugee status must be granted, then restrict family reunification to prevent more people coming.

    And so on, and so forth. Most of those measures failed.

    The fact that Merkel was forced to accept droves of refugees entering Germany is due to three reasons:

    a) There are German, EU and international laws that Germany must abide with, and that compel the country to accept asylum seekers.

    b) The Dublin-Schengen glacis in the Balkans collapsed under the sheer number of people suddenly moving to the EU.

    c) Other countries, especially poorer ones, have been so infuriated by an overbearing Germany and its lack of solidarity in the past that they gleefully try to have Germany pick up the tab for the crisis.

    Those who criticize Merkel in Germany (and elsewhere) would face exactly the same quandary in her position: either violate international, EU and German laws to stop refugees at the border; or frantically try to hack some legal measure to deflect the flow of people to their country.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult.

    Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria.

    susan the other , March 2, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    It looks that way to me too. More like a secret agreement between Russia, the US, France, Germany and the UK. Russia and France would "go in" to Syria; the US and the UK would provide all the support needed, and Germany would maintain its pacifist position by accepting the refugees. But when the first giant wave of refugees arrived, the great humanitarian heart of the German people had a big infarction and they started burning down refugee housing, etc. I didn't know NATO had sent warships to turn the refugees back to Turkey, whereupon Turkey will once again launch them away. This whole thing is shameless. The entire western world is an odious farce.

    No one in particular , March 2, 2016 at 6:41 am

    @ Visitor

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-in-deutschland-rechtsstaatlich-machbar-14060376.html
    [riddled with legalese, the summary is – a lot of laws are broken]

    Merkel did, if involuntarily, invite a lot of migrants, and it was not covered by EU, German or other law – see link, four professors of law, not me.

    You can apply for political asylum only if you are on German soil, and I am not aware of any neighboring state where a war is fought or persecution is prevalent – in the middle of the EU. Geneva applies only to adjacent countries, and again – "for obvious geographic reasons" – not applicable. So if Dublin would be applied, NONE of the migrants had a legal right to come to Germany.

    As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding.

    Merkel certainly is in a quandary to square the circle of "push and pull" factors, some self-inflicted, some admittedly not so much.

    Whilst some in Germany are suffering from a pathological "need to help" (to feel better/superior) – and thrive on "helping", there was no legal precedence to issue the "blanket invitation" on September 4th. Period. And while the will to help war refugees from Syria and Iraq is laudable, it has been abused by scores of people from Northern Africa, the Balkans, etc. Why do think so many people are arriving without passports, if claiming to come from Syria is like winning the jackpot, i.e. the right to stay and much better life chances.

    Even if not imaginable for many Westerners, lot of families have sold everything, gone into debt to sent one family member, feathered the nest of the smugglers for this hope. At the very least there has been serious failure of communication – to manage expectations – as we all could observe over the recent month; partly because Merkel does not dare to touch the elephant in the room, the missing legal framework for legal economic immigration, thus the "political asylum" is stretched beyond it's limits.

    And her "plan" is defeated simply by the sheer numbers – whilst 1 million all over the EU might have been possible, the 60-80 mio people globally in search of a better life – will be too much for Germany alone.

    The only reason for her to be still in power, other than the missing emergency brakes in the German Democratic system, is the fear of the CDU members to loose their own position of power, there is no vision to what could follow Merkel whilst preserving their own position.

    visitor , March 2, 2016 at 10:27 am

    The legal review you refer to basically amounts to recalling that Dublin allows Germany to push asylum seekers back to Austria, which is legally the place where they must ask for refugee status because that country allowed them to cross its territory after declining to send them back to Hungary (or Slovenia, or ) Taking into account the fact that Germany is allowed to make individual exceptions and not granting them "en masse", this is basically a call to dump the hot potato onto Austria's lap.

    Basically, this would be tactic (9): harp on the legal fine points and have Germany's bordering countries deal with the refugees. Austria has already put in place a throttling mechanism to make sure it does not have to deal with lots of cases anyway - and that although much more effective than a zealous and pedantic application of the Dublin stipulations, this mechanism has dubious legality.

    With this, we have not left the tactic desperately followed by Merkel et al: deflect the refugees as much as possible from Germany, and let others deal with the mess. Just as I described.

    Regarding the 4th September decision (actually 5th September), it was clearly a measure to relieve temporarily the pressure on Hungary by allowing only those refugees who had already reached Hungary to proceed to Austria and further to Germany. The reason: Hungary was seriously on its way to crash Schengen, Schengen was essential (for reasons already discussed) to Germany, and Merkel was desperate to save Schengen from collapsing. It did not work: on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further.

    But a "blanket invitation"? In no way. The fact that it was interpreted in such a way by the press and that it sucked in more refugees arriving in Greece was something Merkel could have predicted and forestalled, but she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision.

    Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore of the Canary Islands not on Lesbos, and when Ceuta and Melilla where being frantically fortified, not Bulgaria or Macedonia. The only thing that has changed is that the flows have progressively move East towards Europe's soft underbelly, and that at each stage they grew by an order of magnitude. Spain dealt with tens of thousands of people per year, Italy with hundreds of thousands, and now we have reached the million mark in the Balkans. All the improvised plans on quotas, hot-spots, UNHCR funding, etc, come 20 years too late.

    No one particular , March 2, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Nice diversion, let's deal with the fine print.

    a) we agree the current practice is illegal. b) it might sound morally superior to "help" the Austrians, but for whom is it the better solution? c) I maintain the "blanket invitation" was the result, even if unintended – the appearance of "all are welcome" incentivised too many to uproot themselves in vain d) true, the collective refusal of Germany and the rest of Europe to deal with the (economic) immigration question for decades has contributed to the current situation – however, Merkel's solo attempt to solve the Budapest issue, and adding insult to injury – without informing the "partners" supposed to share the burden beforehand – was neither effective, nor sensible, nor diplomatic. e) I wonder whether the "save Schengen" argument will survive the scrutiny of hindsight, i.e. IMHO it does not sound credible, but I can only speculate and I will refrain. Schengen is important to the German economy, but the price paid – utter distrust by the majority of Germans into the government, state and press was much too high, I think. There must have been higher stakes at play, I guess. f) Merkel wasted 5-6 month to create a proper immigration law, differentiating the three routes, i.e. asylum, temporary war shelter due to Geneva Convention and "economic immigration" – and to entice the rest of Europe to deal with it, as she has not started the process to update the archaic German laws regarding sexual harassment, rape etc to EU wide standards, the current draft is wanting – before and after Cologne. g) She burdened the Germans with
    1. with a lot of unskilled and difficult to integrate Migrants
    2. destroyed whatever goodwill there was towards Germany in Europe or the world –
    3. settled the country with global unease about a Germany so out of bounds, palpable for everyone outside Berlin – years of reputation building down the drain
    4. recently gave the appearance of obstinacy to stick to a plan unsuited for reality, stubbornly ignoring the unwillingness of the other Europeans to sacrifice their countries alongside Germany – there will be no support and no "coalition of the willing" – at least not until Merkel sees reason and closes the borders. I do think her comment yesterday, about "migrants to not have the right to choose where to apply for asylum" was tentatively going in the right direction, but was certainly not strong enough to persuade desperate people not to start their journey or to go home from Greece.
    5. more or less exposed the German democratic system as incapable in dealing with this emergency situation in a legal and democratic way
    6. allowing H. Maas to accuse the ex constitutional judges of "mental arson" for voicing objections (FAZ) – the article was just about short of telling the judges to shut up, which, as an indication of were free speech is going, was rather frightening

    And no realism or vision in sight. Deplorable, for Germany and everybody else.

    OIFVet , March 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Send a couple of million to the US and to Saudi Arabia. And keep expediting the rest to Germany, with all due haste. The Balkans are indeed shutting down the borders, but given the mountainous terrain some migrants will inevitably slip through. Personally I find it a good investment to charter planes to Berlin and fly them directly to Madame Merkel. Because that's what hse deserves for being a spineless puppet, and for also kissing the ring of the wanna-be sultan in Ankara.

    dandaniel , March 2, 2016 at 10:34 am

    The emperor is naked!
    Who should deal with this migration crisis? EU council or angela? I mean, you have a bunch of bureaucrats in bruxelles and EU was supposed to be led by this council? Also, EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already!

    washunate , March 2, 2016 at 11:20 am

    This post seems a little disjointed. Is the argument that Merkel specifically and Germany generally is bad because they're not as open as they ought to be to foreign nationals? Or is the post saying Germany is bad because they are too open to foreign nationals?

    And is Germany bad because they trap Greece in an evil, domineering EMU? Or is Germany bad because they're kicking Greece out of a great, happy EMU?

    TG , March 2, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy.

    Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). Even a technically sophisticated economy needs quite a lot of 'unskilled' labor, and replacing a few million Germans making 15 euro/hour with refugees that only need be directly paid a euro an hour, can make the right companies an awful lot of money. Do the math.

    And on another note: we constantly hear that more people are always better, that anyone suggesting that opening the borders to the overpopulated third world could possibly in any way be a bad thing, must a priori be racist. So surely bottling up all those refugees in Greece can only be wonderful? Why not do the Greeks a favor and force them to take all the surplus populations from Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Pakistan etc? That simply MUST be wonderful and anyone objecting must be a fascist like Golden Dawn or Donald Trump and such hateful speech should be quashed as quickly as possible. Because people are the ultimate resource and it doesn't matter if Greece runs out of food or fresh water or timber or housing or electric generating capacity etc., because more people will automatically and without delay create even more wealth despite having nothing to work with. Yes?

    VietnamVet , March 2, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    It is quite astonishing to read these reports but there are no explanations of the causes.

    The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West.

    Knute Rife , March 2, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Obama has normalized the idea that Us presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal

    Dec 02, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Nov 30, 2016 6:07:04 PM | 141

    @126 quentin, 'He is trying to divert us from---well, from Donald Trump.'

    Bingo. There is no 'there' there. Just an endless stream of incendiary statements to keep the man in the 'news'.

    More on "not a dime's worth of difference" ... not from the TNC msm.

    Obama extends global reach of US Special Operations death squads


    "Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal."

    Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.

    ... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what hit them.

    I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.

    [Dec 02, 2016] Fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the neoliberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left.

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist, the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda. ..."
    "... the greater danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called "moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future Trumps to come. ..."
    "... In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left. ..."
    "... Politics is about priorities. You don't need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of your lowest priorities. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Patrick 12.01.16 at 6:34 pm 88

    "Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the political right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism. "

    And the political left has been increasingly dominated by neoliberalism.

    WLGR 12.01.16 at 7:02 pm 89 ( 89 )

    faustusnotes, to blur the divide between the neoliberal center and the socialist left is to fall totally and completely into the trap. At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist, the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda.

    The fact that all these "never Trump" Republicans are now clamoring for roles in what's predictably shaping up as a neoliberal administration with a national-chauvinist veneer should validate what the left has been saying all along: that Trump as a politician is not in any meaningful sense unprecedented, his rhetoric proceeds logically or even inevitably from the long (and bipartisan) tradition of national-chauvinist ideology in US electoral politics, and if anything the greater danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called "moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future Trumps to come.

    ... ... ...

    In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left.

    ... ... ...

    Sebastian H 12.02.16 at 8:03 am 93 ( 93 )

    "WLGR, where is the democratic policy statement that they are "dropping" the interests of blue collar workers?"

    This isn't a clear way of analyzing the problem. Politics is about priorities. You don't need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of your lowest priorities.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Collapse of neoliberalism means rise of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism ..."
    "... Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past. ..."
    "... the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing, services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory. ..."
    "... Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine) ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.29.16 at 2:17 am 6

    John Quiggin on November 28, 2016:

    Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the political right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism

    The sustainability of tribalism as a political force will depend, in large measure, on the perceived success or failure of Brexit.

    I see it differently. I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism , if we understand neofascism as

    neofascism = fascism 
        – physical violence as the main tool of controlling opposition
        – attempts to replace parliamentary democracy with the authoritarian rule
        + some degree of acceptance of "unearned income" and financial oligarchy 
        + weaker demands for social protection of middle class and Drang nach Osten 

    Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past.

    And the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing, services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory.

    Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine)

    In other words neoliberalism is digging its own grave, but not the way Marx assumed.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Welcome to the world of Europes far-right - Al Jazeera English

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
    "... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
    "... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
    "... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | www.aljazeera.com
    Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.

    An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile, and anti- Western.

    New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time." Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?

    Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties.

    Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.

    There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending the so-called "European civilization".

    The future of Europe?

    The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament, declared.

    Another fellow party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.

    The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.

    On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.

    She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a " pan-European Union " including Russia.

    At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.

    Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins - and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate" far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.

    Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    See also:

    rickstersherpa November 30, 2016 11:35 am

    I note that some of your factual assumptions e.g. "Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare" appear to be wrong and may be drawn from corrupt sources (FAIR and/or AIC, in particular Steve Camarota). See https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it .

    Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and drug gangs and associated violence.)

    I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths), particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people, citizens and non-citizens alike..

    rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am

    Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants) and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S. culture. http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle, or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker that Mr. Kimel is using.

    Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm

    To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their parents on welfare, None.

    This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.

    I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting them for him and crediting him with the posts.

    In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as Breitbart.

    But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really jarring.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm

    Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within" and using the state to develop talent.

    "right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground railroad for immigrants in the US.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm

    Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.

    You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.

    Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm

    Kimel,
    Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country. Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't make that distinction.

    Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks going forward again.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm

    Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand, The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm

    CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    (Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked "Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)

    Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm

    I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed. We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.

    "The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction." What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?

    " it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.

    "To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference to? Then why only from non Western countries?

    [Nov 27, 2016] NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA by Eugene L. Mendonsa

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state. It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude any challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent fascism can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate politically in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders. ..."
    "... They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology. ..."
    "... In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity. This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war and create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and powerful. Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is defined as being essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex becomes sacrosanct in the pursuit of national defense. ..."
    "... Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating a gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread violence. ..."
    openanthcoop.ning.com
    Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state. It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude any challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent fascism can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate politically in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders.

    Today this force is the Republican Party, now infiltrated by Tea Party radicals. Those views stress past values, nationalist spirit and strong cultural unity. Neo-fascists tend to exclude ideas and changes that they see as threatening their cherished value system.

    They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology.

    Nonetheless, in the United States this idealized viewpoint has overtones of racism and tends to focus around Christianity as the source of needed values. For instance, one slogan of the Tea Party is "Regular Folks United – The Bully Pulpit for Regular Folks." Irregulars need not apply.

    In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity. This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war and create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and powerful. Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is defined as being essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex becomes sacrosanct in the pursuit of national defense.

    In present-day America such neo-fascist ideas are combatively percolating in national politics and are exemplified in the rhetoric of such radical figures as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann.

    Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating a gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread violence. Furthermore, global capitalism is advancing at a time when, according to Oxfam, by 2050, the global population is forecast to rise by one-third to more than 9 billion, while demand for food will rise even higher – by 70 percent – as more prosperous economies demand more calories and crop production continues to fall relative to population.

    The British charity projects that prices of staple foods could more than double in the next 20 years, pushing millions of people deeper into poverty. The effects of a combination of population growth and the growing numbers of unemployed and impoverished people in the world is creating international crises, most recently in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen; but the emergency is global and we face a crisis of humanity. The world is a powder keg and the fuse is burning.

    Fascists use this time of great upheavals and uncertainties as their raison d'etre to return to an imagined world where such problems did not exist. Uneducated people are prone to heed their simplistic slogans and ideas.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Obama changes his mind on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
    "... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
    "... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
    "... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | off-guardian.org
    It's been quite a progression, hasn't it?

    Part One: Weak, Regional, Failing

    Netherlands, 25 March 2014

    " Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength but out of weakness.

    Economist interview, 2 August 2014

    " But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think history is on our side.

    State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015

    " Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters. That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)

    Part Two: Maybe not

    Washington, 18 October 2016

    " The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part of the problem.

    Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide

    Berlin, 17 November 2016

    " With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.


    "constant since I first came into office"

    StAug says November 25, 2016

    BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
    BigB says November 25, 2016
    Excellent comment!

    For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing.

    Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.

    Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?

    StAug says November 25, 2016
    Indeed! If only we could pop some corn and watch from a safe space on another planet
    tutisicecream says November 25, 2016
    Should be titled "Putin's Progress".

    During this tale many of the would be pretenders have fallen or are falling by the wayside.

    Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on

    Their Faustian Bargain seems to have failed them and given rise to Mephistopheles incarnate Trump.

    Řystein Blix says November 25, 2016
    Putin, at least, seems to have a spine

    DavidKNZ says November 24, 2016

    What a lesson this man has been.
    Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
    Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
    Death by drone, without trial
    Death by military misadventure in the middle east
    Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending

    And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.

    At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass

    Amer Hudson says November 24, 2016
    He's been worked like a ventriloquist's dummy. And badly at that.
    Alec says November 24, 2016
    "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!

    [Nov 26, 2016] Wayne Madsen The CIA Has Always Served the Interests of Wall Street by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

    Notable quotes:
    "... The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | ahtribune.com

    Mohsen Abdelmoumen : According to you, when we see the numerous demonstrations anti-Trump in the United States after the election of Donald Trump at the presidency, are we witnessing a colored revolution?

    Wayne Madsen: It is classic Soros-funded color revolution. Soros is financing MoveOn.org, Black Lives Matter, Demos, and other of his groups to turn out protesters and is even running ads in papers looking for paid drivers and protest coordinators.

    In your very relevant books devoted to George Soros: "Soros: Quantum of Chaos", you reveal the true face of this figure who is the spearhead of several destabilization operations in the world. From where does all the power come that this criminal holds and why is he untouchable?

    Soros is very wealthy and actually a frontman for an even more powerful and wealthy person, Evelyn de Rothschild, along with his family. They are all the true puppet masters of the world.

    Soros remains a major element in the anti-Trump device. Can Trump resist him?

    Trump is actually now being surrounded by people who will serve in his administration who will be loyal to the Soros-Rothschild puppet masters and certainly not to Trump.

    Can we say that the occult world is more powerful than legal institutions?

    Secret societies with their crazy rituals have been the bane of human existence since the time of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees in Palestine and the Dionysian cults of the Nile Valley and the Mediterranean region.

    In your book " ISIS is US - The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror", you detail the relations between the USA and ISIS/Daesh. What is the triggering element that has put you on this trail?

    Trump's national security adviser retired Lt Gen Michael Flynn revealed that the US was supporting ISIS and then he was forced to resign. My own sources in the Middle East confirmed this long before Flynn made his public statement and was fired as Defense Intelligence Agency chief by Obama.

    You mention Western Sahara and the involvement of the Clintons in a deal with the Kingdom of Morocco while this case is under the authority of UN. Aren't the Clintons outlaws such Bonnie and Clyde by supporting Morocco against the Sahrawi people and the UN's resolutions?

    The Clintons received at least $12 million from the Moroccan government in return for buying their loyalty to Morocco's agenda, which includes permanently annexing Western Sahara as the "Southern Province." Morocco and Israel share the same policy on annexing illegally-occupied territories.

    According to your diverse very interesting analysis, can we assert that the World Government or the false prophets of the New World Order are the real decision-makers of this world?

    I mentioned a few already, Soros/Rothschild. Others are the Bilderbergs, Bohemian Club, and the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts.

    You know very well some American intelligence agencies like the NSA. Do these intelligence agencies serve the US' interests or, rather, the oligarchy's interests?

    The CIA has always served the interests of Wall Street. NSA now serves the interests of the global security network it leads.

    You were an officer in the US Navy. Was the whistleblower you are today born after your military career or before?

    Before. I was an FBI-Navy whistleblower in 1982 and helped to uncover a major pedophile ring in the US Navy that reached into the Reagan-Bush White House and was ultimately exposed in The Washington Times in 1988-89. My whistleblowing cost me my Navy career, however, and a subsequent series of fairly bad jobs.

    In the recent US election, we saw the mass media bankruptcy despite their manipulations and their fake polls. Didn't one of the pillars of world oligarchy collapse under our eyes? Don't we witness a historic moment announcing the end of the New World Order and its purely capitalist product, globalization?

    99 percent of major newspapers endorsed Clinton. Many alternative news sources supported Trump. We are seeing a massive shift away from newspapers and corporate TV and websites to the alternative media, of which WayneMadsenReport.com has been prominent since its founding in 2005.

    Snowden has denounced the Prism program and you have denounced Echelon, both of which serve the interests of the world's oligarchic caste. What is known is not only the immersed part of the iceberg?

    What is still relatively unknown is the close cooperation between NSA and private companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, and major telecommunications companies. It is much greater than even Snowden's documents describe.

    The quantity and especially the quality of your reports reveal to us a world unknown by millions of human beings. How all these truths have been hidden?

    The major media cooperates with the government in covering up news events.

    I advise everyone to read the Wayne Madsen Report as well as your books and follow your various interventions in the alternative media. How do you explain that we, who are resisting to what I call the fascist oligarchic caste, are called conspiracy theorists? Is this concept the only weapon of the fascist imperialists to reduce to silence all those who resist them and to reinforce the ranks of those whose who have been brainwashed?

    The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes.

    Your book " The Star and The Sword " is one of the few to talk about intimate and opaque links between the Zionist entity of Israel and Saudi Arabia. You claim that they organize false flag attacks, including the 9/11. What is the origin and nature of this Israeli-Saudi strategic alliance? Do you think that the JASTA law will succeed or will it be countered by the Zionist allies of Saudi Arabia? Do the fact that the USA and the Westerners turn a blind eye on the criminal war led by the Saudis to Yemen isn't due to the weight of the lobby Zionist?

    The Zionist-Wahhabi/Saudi alliance goes back to Ibn Saud who wrote the British and Zionist leaders that he did not oppose a Jewish homeland in Palestine so long as it did not lay claim to Saudi territory on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The relationship has always been close, except for the time of King Faisal, who was conveniently shot in the face and killed by a relative.

    Do you undergo pressure or threats in relation to the remarkable work you do? If so, how do you live it?

    I was forced to move my domicile from Washington because the outgoing Obama administration put pressure on some media organizations I did work for. These included RT (contributor agreement canceled) and Al Jazeera America (which is now defunct).

    The FBI entered my apartment in Washington at least twice and I've had three visits by them at my new home in Florida. I was informed of 3 personal threats in Washington. I ignore all these pressures and continue to exercise the freedom of the press. Are you optimistic or do you think that the Satanist project of the oligarchy still has a nuisance capacity that can plunge the world into chaos?

    As with cockroaches, which detest light, the shadow figures of covert power cannot stand what is known as the disinfectant of sunshine. Light has always fought against darkness and will continue to do so.

    Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

    Wayne Madsen is an American journalist, television news commentator, online editor of Wayne Madsen Report.com , investigative journalist and author specializing intelligence and international affairs.Starting in 1997, after his military service as a U.S. Navy lieutenant assigned to Anti-Submarine Warfare duties and to the National Security Agency as a COMSEC analyst, he applied his military intelligence training to investigative journalism.He has since written for many daily, weekly, and monthly publications including The Progressive , The Village Voice , Counterpunch , Philadelphia Inquirer , Houston Chronicle , Allentown Morning Call , Juneau Empire , Cleveland Plain Dealer , Real Clear Politics , Danbury Newstimes , Newsday and many others.Throughout his journalistic career, he has been a television commentator on many programs, including 60 Minutes , Russia Today , Press TV , and many others.He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC , NBC , CBS , PBS , CNN , BBC , Al Jazeera , and MS-NBC .

    He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and a terrorism investigation judicial inquiry of the French government. Wayne Madsen has some thirty-five years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation. Wayne Madsen was a Senior Fellow for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy public advocacy organization. Mr. Madsen is a member of the National Press Club.

    Wayne Madsen is the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law; Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1999); co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II ( Dandelion, 2003); Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden ; author of Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates ; Overthrow a Fascist Regime on $15 a Day ; The star and the sword ; The Manufacturing of a President: the CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House ; L'Affaire Petraeus ; and National Security Agency Surveillance: Reflections and Revelations ; Soros: Quantum of Chaos (2015); Unmasking ISIS: The Shocking Truth (2016).

    His website: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

    [Nov 25, 2016] Anti Russian warriors created valuable set of sites that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not. Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally ( Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
    As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly recommend to use the list that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism , Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites like Ron Paul and AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream) news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as Truthdig and Truth-out.org ."
    Extended list is here It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
    www.propornot.com
    Name Domain Primary Target Audience Interests Review Article Absurd Pro-Russia Content Source? Repeater?
    Infowars / Alex Jones infowars.com Conspiracy Example Example Major Major
    Zerohedge zerohedge.com Finance Example Example Major Major
    True Activist trueactivist.com Left-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Natural News naturalnews.com Health Example Example Major Major
    Ending The Fed endingthefed.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Corbett Report corbettreport.com Geopolitics Example Example Major Minor
    Washington's Blog washingtonsblog.com General Example Example Major Major
    Before It's News beforeitsnews.com General Example Example No Major
    Counterpunch counterpunch.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    Ron Paul Institute ronpaulinstitute.org Right-Wing Example Example Major Major
    Hang the Bankers hangthebankers.com Finance Example Example Minor Major
    The Activist Post activistpost.com Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    The Anti-Media theantimedia.org Anti-Media Example Example Major Minor
    Veterans Today veteranstoday.com Veterans Example Example Major Major
    Southfront southfront.org Military Example Example Major Major
    Your Newswire yournewswire.com General Example Example Major Major
    America's Freedom Fighters americasfreedomfighters.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Minor
    Global Research globalresearch.ca General Example Example Major Major
    Paul Craig Roberts paulcraigroberts.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor

    List of allies:

    [Nov 25, 2016] Recommended links that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site definitely smells with McCarthyism -- the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the USSR" type of sites.
    But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian. After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may not know about their existence.
    The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
    The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest US news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and across the web."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.propornot.com
    PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).

    We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.

    [Nov 25, 2016] Is Obama presiding over a national security state gone rogue? by Michael Cohen

    National security state gone rogue is fascism. Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties. But I do see our foreign policy distorted by a counter-terror obsession
    Notable quotes:
    "... the government's interpretation of that law ..."
    "... "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime." ..."
    "... but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters ..."
    Jun 21, 2013 | The Guardian

    Jump to comments (118)

    Two weeks ago, the Guardian began publishing a series of eye-opening revelations about the National Security Agency and its surveillance efforts both in the United States and overseas. These stories raised long-moribund and often-ignored questions about the pervasiveness of government surveillance and the extent to which privacy rights are being violated by this secret and seemingly unaccountable security apparatus.

    However, over the past two weeks, we've begun to get a clearer understanding of the story and the implications of what has been published – informed in part by a new-found (if forced upon them) transparency from the intelligence community. So here's one columnist's effort to sort the wheat from the chaff and offer a few answers to the big questions that have been raised.

    These revelations are a big deal, right?

    To fully answer this question, it's important to clarify the revelations that have sparked such controversy. The Guardian (along with the Washington Post) has broken a number of stories, each of which tells us very different things about what is happening inside the US government around matters of surveillance and cyber operations. Some are relatively mundane, others more controversial.

    The story that has shaped press coverage and received the most attention was the first one – namely, the publication of a judicial order from the Fisa court to Verizon that indicated the US is "hoovering" up millions of phone records (so-called "metadata") into a giant NSA database. When it broke, the story was quickly portrayed as a frightening tale of government overreach and violation of privacy rights. After all, such metadata – though it contains no actual content – can be used rather easily as a stepping-stone to more intrusive forms of surveillance.

    But what is the true extent of the story here: is this picture of government Big Brotherism correct or is this massive government surveillance actually quite benign?

    First of all, such a collection of data is not, in and of itself, illegal. The Obama administration was clearly acting within the constraints of federal law and received judicial approval for this broad request for data. That doesn't necessarily mean that the law is good or that the government's interpretation of that law is not too broad, but unlike the Bush "warrantless wiretapping" stories of several years ago, the US government is here acting within the law.

    The real question that should concern us is one raised by the TV writer David Simon in a widely cited blogpost looking at the issues raised by the Guardian's reporting, namely:

    "Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy – and in a manner that is unsupervised."

    We know, for example, that the NSA is required to abide by laws that prevent the international targeting of American citizens (you can read more about that here). So, while metadata about phone calls made can be used to discover information about the individuals making the calls, there are "minimization" rules, procedures and laws that guide the use of such data and prevent possible abuse and misuse of protected data.

    The minimization procedures used by the NSA are controlled by secret Fisa courts. In fact, last year, the Fisa court ruled that these procedures didn't pass constitutional muster and had to be rewritten.

    Sure, the potential for abuse exists – but so, too, does the potential for the lawful use of metadata in a way that protects the privacy of individual Americans – and also assists the US government in pursuit of potential terrorist suspects. Of course, without information on the specific procedures used by the NSA to minimize the collection of protected data, it is impossible to know that no laws are being broken or no abuse is occurring.

    In that sense, we have to take the government's word for it. And that is especially problematic when you consider the Fisa court decisions authorizing this snooping are secret and the congressional intelligence committees tasked with conducting oversight tend to be toothless.

    But assumptions of bad faith and violations of privacy by the US government are just that assumptions. When President Obama says that the NSA is not violating privacy rights because it would be against the law, we can't simply disregard such statements as self-serving. Moreover, when one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame.

    Edward Snowden: is he a hero or a traitor?

    One of the key questions that have emerged over this story is the motivation of the leaker in question, Edward Snowden. In his initial public interview, with Glenn Greenwald on 9 June, Snowden explained his actions, in part, thus:

    "I'm willing to sacrifice because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

    Now, while one can argue that Snowden's actions do not involve personal sacrifice, whether they are heroic is a much higher bar to cross. First of all, it's far from clear that the US government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world. Snowden may sincere about being "valiant for truth", but he wouldn't be the first person to believe himself such and yet be wrong.

    Second, one can make the case that there is a public interest in knowing that the US is collecting reams of phone records, but where is the public interest – and indeed, to Snowden's own justification, the violation of privacy – in leaking a presidential directive on cyber operations or leaking that the US is spying on the Russian president?

    The latter is both not a crime it's actually what the NSA was established to do! In his recent online chat hosted by the Guardian, Snowden suggested that the US should not be spying on any country with whom it's not formally at war. That is, at best, a dubious assertion, and one that is at odds with years of spycraft.

    On the presidential directive on cyber operations, the damning evidence that Snowden revealed was that President Obama has asked his advisers to create a list of potential targets for cyber operations – but such planning efforts are rather routine contingency operations. For example, if the US military drew up war plans in case conflict ever occurred between the US and North Korea – and that included offensive operations – would that be considered untoward or perhaps illegitimate military planning?

    This does not mean, however, that Snowden is a traitor. Leaking classified data is a serious offense, but treason is something else altogether.

    The problem for Snowden is that he has now also leaked classified information about ongoing US intelligence-gathering efforts to foreign governments, including China and Russia. That may be crossing a line, which means that the jury is still out on what label we should use to describe Snowden.

    Shouldn't Snowden be protected as a whistleblower?

    This question of leakers v whistleblowers has frequently been conflated in the public reporting about the NSA leak (and many others). But this is a crucial error. As Tara Lee, a lawyer at the law firm DLA Piper, with expertise in defense industry and national security litigation said to me there is an important distinction between leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime."

    Traditionally (and often technically), whistleblowing refers to specific actions that are taken to bring to attention illegal behavior, fraud, waste, abuse etc. Moreover, the US government provides federal employees and contractors with the protection to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In the case of Snowden, he could have gone to the inspector general at the Department of Justice or relevant congressional committees.

    From all accounts, it appears that he did not go down this path. Of course, since the material he was releasing was approved by the Fisa court and had the sign-off of the intelligence committee, he had good reason to believe that he would have not received the most receptive hearing for his complaints.

    Nevertheless, that does not give him carte blanche to leak to the press – and certainly doesn't give him carte blanche to leak information on activities that he personally finds objectionable but are clearly legal. Indeed, according to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), whistleblowers can make complaints over matter of what the law calls "urgent concern", which includes "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters [my italics]."

    In other words, simply believing that a law or government action is wrong does not give one the right to leak information; and in the eyes of the law, it is not considered whistleblowing. Even if one accepts the view that the leaked Verizon order fell within the bounds of being in the "public interest", it's a harder case to make for the presidential directive on cyber operations or the eavesdropping on foreign leaders.

    The same problem is evident in the incorrect description of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower. When you leak hundreds of thousands of documents – not all of which you reviewed and most of which contain the mundane and not illegal diplomatic behavior of the US government – you're leaking. Both Manning and now Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what should be in the public domain; quite simply, they don't have the right to do that. If every government employee decided actions that offended their sense of morality should be leaked, the government would never be able to keep any secrets at all and, frankly, would be unable to operate effectively.

    So, like Manning, Snowden is almost certainly not a whistleblower, but rather a leaker. And that would mean that he, like Manning, is liable to prosecution for leaking classified material.

    Are Democrats hypocrites over the NSA's activities?

    A couple of days ago, my Guardian colleague, Glenn Greenwald made the following assertion:

    "The most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits. One of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of the Bush "war on terror" and national security state into their biggest proponents."

    This is regular line of argument from Glenn, but it's one that, for a variety of reasons, I believe is not fair. (I don't say this because I'm an Obama partisan – though I may be called one for writing this.)

    First, the lion's share of criticism of these recent revelations has come, overwhelmingly, from Democrats and, indeed, from many of the same people, including Greenwald, who were up in arms when the so-called warrantless wiretapping program was revealed in 2006. The reality is that outside a minority of activists, it's not clear that many Americans – Democrats or Republicans get all that excited about these types of stories. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing.)

    Second, opposition to the Bush program was two-fold: first, it was illegal and was conducted with no judicial or congressional oversight; second, Bush's surveillance policies did not occur in a vacuum – they were part of a pattern of law-breaking, disastrous policy decisions and Manichean rhetoric over the "war on terror". So, if you opposed the manner in which Bush waged war on the "axis of evil", it's not surprising that you would oppose its specific elements. In the same way, if you now support how President Obama conducts counter-terrorism efforts, it's not surprising that you'd be more inclined to view specific anti-terror policies as more benign.

    Critics will, of course, argue – and rightly so – that we are a country of laws first. In which case it shouldn't matter who is the president, but rather what the laws are that govern his or her conduct. Back in the world of political reality, though, that's not how most Americans think of their government. Their perceptions are defined in large measure by how the current president conducts himself, so there is nothing at all surprising about Republicans having greater confidence in a Republican president and Democrats having greater confidence in a Democratic one, when asked about specific government programs.

    Beyond that, simply having greater confidence in President Obama than President Bush to wield the awesome powers granted the commander-in-chief to conduct foreign policy is not partisanship. It's common sense.

    George Bush was, undoubtedly, one of the two or three worst foreign policy presidents in American history (and arguably, our worst president, period). He and Dick Cheney habitually broke the law, including but not limited to the abuse of NSA surveillance. President Obama is far from perfect: he made the terrible decision to surge in Afghanistan, and he's fought two wars of dubious legality in Libya and Pakistan, but he's very far from the sheer awfulness of the Bush/Cheney years.

    Unless you believe the US should have no NSA, and conduct no intelligence-gathering in the fight against terrorism, you have to choose a president to manage that agency. And there is nothing hypocritical or partisan about believing that one president is better than another to handle those responsibilities.

    Has NSA surveillance prevented terrorist attacks, as claimed?

    In congressional testimony this week, officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA argued that surveillance efforts stopped "potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11". Having spent far too many years listening to public officials describe terrifying terror plots that fell apart under greater scrutiny, this assertion sets off for me a set of red flags (even though it may be true).

    I have no doubt that NSA surveillance has contributed to national security investigations, but whether it's as extensive or as vital as the claims of government officials is more doubtful. To be honest, I'm not sure it matters. Part of the reason the US government conducts NSA surveillance in the first place is not necessarily to stop every potential attack (though that would be nice), but to deter potential terrorists from acting in the first place.

    Critics of the program like to argue that "of course, terrorists know their phones are being tapped and emails are being read", but that's kind of the point. If they know this, it forces them to choose more inefficient means of communicating, and perhaps to put aside potential attacks for fear of being uncovered.

    We also know that not every terrorist has the skills of a Jason Bourne. In fact, many appear to be not terribly bright, which means that even if they know about the NSA's enormous dragnet, it doesn't mean they won't occasionally screw up and get caught.

    Yet, this gets to a larger issue that is raised by the NSA revelations.

    When is enough counter-terrorism enough?

    Over the past 12 years, the US has developed what can best be described as a dysfunctional relationship with terrorism. We've become obsessed with it and with a zero-tolerance approach to stopping it. While the former is obviously an important goal, it has led the US to take steps that not only undermine our values (such as torture), but also make us weaker (the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, etc).

    To be sure, this is not true of every anti-terror program of the past dozen years. For example, the US does a better job of sharing intelligence among government agencies, and of screening those who are entering the country. And military efforts in the early days of the "war on terror" clearly did enormous damage to al-Qaida's capabilities.

    In general, though, when one considers the relatively low risk of terrorist attacks – and the formidable defenses of the United States – the US response to terrorism has been one of hysterical over-reaction. Indeed, the balance we so often hear about when it comes to protecting privacy while also ensuring security is only one part of the equation. The other is how do we balance the need to stop terrorists (who certainly aspire to attack the United States) and the need to prevent anti-terrorism from driving our foreign policy to a disproportionate degree. While the NSA revelations might not be proof that we've gone too far in one direction, there's not doubt that, for much of the past 12 years, terrorism has distorted and marred our foreign policy.

    Last month, President Obama gave a seminal speech at the National Defense University, in which he essentially declared the "war on terror" over. With troops coming home from Afghanistan, and drone strikes on the decline, that certainly seems to be the case. But as the national freakout over the Boston Marathon bombing – and the extraordinary over-reaction of a city-wide lockdown for one wounded terrorist on the loose – remind us, we still have a ways to go.

    Moreover, since no politician wants to find him- or herself in a situation after a terrorist attack when the criticism "why didn't you do more?" can be aired, that political imperative of zero tolerance will drive our counterterrorism policies. At some point, that needs to end.

    In fact, nine years ago, our current secretary of state, John Kerry, made this exact point; it's worth reviewing his words:

    "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

    What the NSA revelations should spark is not just a debate on surveillance, but on the way we think about terrorism and the steps that we should be willing to take both to stop it and ensure that it does not control us. We're not there yet.

    007Prometheus

    No GCHQ - MI5 - MI6 - NSA - CIA - FBI etc........... ad nausem!

    How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services? If 11/9 and 7/7 were homegrown attacks, then i think, they will take us all down with them.

    NOTaREALmerican

    @007Prometheus

    Re: How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services?

    The wonderful thing about living in a "Keynesian" perpetually increasing debt paradise is you NEVER have to say you can't afford anything. (Well, unless you want to say it, but if you do it's just political bullshit).

    So, to answer your question... A "Keynesian" never asks how much, just how much do you want.

    bloopie2

    "Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties"

    Just wait until they come for you.

    bloopie2

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame."

    Dear Sir: Please post your email addresses, bank accounts, and passwords. We'd like to look at everything.

    Got a problem with that?

    Tonieja

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online [...]"

    Wow! I don't really care about my personal email. I do care about all political activists, journalists, lawyers etc. That a journalist would support Stasi style surveillance state is astonishing.

    gisbournelove

    I wish I had the time to go through this article and demolish it sentence by sentence as it so richly deserves, but at the moment I don't. Instead, might I suggest to the author that he go to the guardian archive, read every single story about this in chronological order and then read every damn link posted in the comment threads on the three most recent stories.

    Most especially the links in the comment threads. If after that, he cannot see why we "civil libertarian freaks" are not just outraged, but frightened, he frankly lacks both historical knowledge and any ability to analyze the facts that are staring him in the face. I can't believe I am going to have to say this again but here goes: YOU do not get to give away my contitutional rights, Mr. Cohen.

    I don't give a shit how much you trust Obama compared to dubya. The Bill of Rights states in clear, unambiguous language what the Federal government may NOT do do its citizens no matter WHO is president.

    goodkurtz

    Michael Cohen
    Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties.

    Well of course you wont see them.
    But the abuses are very probably already happening on a one to one basis in the same shadows in which the intelligence was first gathered.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trumps National Security Adviser Facilitated the Murder of Civilians in Afghanistan

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011 revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.

    The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.

    The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an unclassified article published in 2008.

    At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals." The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.

    Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected insurgents.

    Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real time whether to carry out a strike on it.

    But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average of more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

    At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization. They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.

    In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called "link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.

    Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.

    What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers. As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence, you don't get the names of those targeted."

    There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan "have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."

    Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number -- meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed in JSOC's operations in 2010.

    The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher. In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban" had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well. basarov 9 hours ago

    Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
    It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000 US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general, under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a 3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?

    We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine excreta and caviar.

    Karl Rowley 19 hours ago
    Obama facilitated the murder of civilians in Afghanistan too. Are you outraged about that?
    DofG Karl Rowley 13 hours ago
    And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are ALL guilty!
    Ando Arike 20 hours ago
    Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
    Michael Valentine a day ago
    Gee I thought we were doing a swell job of killing folks in Afghanistan, that's what we are there for right?
    DofG Michael Valentine a day ago
    We are there to keep the poppy crops going which the Taliban had destroyed! You know that heroin/opiates thing.
    max's pad Michael Valentine a day ago
    I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
    Francis max's pad 6 hours ago
    Max - the Saudi's may have helped finance 911 but they certainly were not the ones that pulled it off.blockquote>Jethro_T

    max's pad a day ago

    Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm. Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Guillotine Watch, Nov 23, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure ..."
    "... Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    " Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure " [ Washington Babylon ].

    I had no idea Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs . How nice for both of them.

    [Nov 23, 2016] War hungry Samantha Power out as UN Ambassador. Trump appoints Nikki Haley to top spot at United Nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... "humanitarian wars" ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | theduran.com

    Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US "humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.

    ... ... ...

    In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Expect the Unexpected

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle, perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011 Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.

    The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued in a must-read Libya analysis at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.

    Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear weapons and "be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a "cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.

    Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.

    Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that beleaguered nation's woes.

    We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble, reflecting on Libya, contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions often have the opposite effect."

    And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling, as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naďve it is to believe that our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?

    Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico , Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama helped to create ISIS by turning a bling eye on US intelligence reports

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
    "... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
    "... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama crosses the line in hypocrisy when he start talking about the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity. What about Libya, Syria and Yemen we would like ask this hypocrite

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47

    At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:

    The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.

    The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

    [Nov 21, 2016] The Deciders The American Conservative by John Hay

    Notable quotes:
    "... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
    "... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
    "... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
    "... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
    "... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
    "... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
    "... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
    "... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
    "... illustration by Michael Hogue ..."
    Oct 27, 2015 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.

    Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    The Deciders

    The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's.

    By John Hay October 27, 2015

    illustration by Michael Hogue

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Fran Macadam , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:16 am
    Neo con men.
    Mike Alexander , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:47 am
    Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration. These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.

    Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies, often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some (Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.

    jefemt , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
    Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away, and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global consequences.
    Response , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
    It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption, and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.

    Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:38 am
    I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:41 am
    The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's."

    You're joking?

    How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?

    Bush was President!

    The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them."

    John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."

    But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies and to fire all of those responsible.

    But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.

    He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.

    Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed the orders to stand.

    I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.

    Again, Bush was President!

    Johann , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:52 am
    I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government, including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan. And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
    SDS , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
    When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression, but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..

    Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.

    Ken T , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:11 am
    So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed up, is that it?

    Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line, and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence as a leader.

    Clint , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:32 am
    "Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January 10, 2008.

    Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification law.

    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
    I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.

    After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy – a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.

    So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people", instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan threatened a veto of his bill).

    The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign policy.

    JamesDDean , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
    Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken. The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
    Chris G , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:35 am
    I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article. They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text ("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
    William Dalton , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:59 am
    There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state, a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it.

    I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did without giving them the resistance and or rejections.

    By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of these decisions. It's a very compelling read.

    MJRay , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm
    If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military and government), then you already know about all of this.
    Kelly Smith , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks of PNAC.

    The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).

    Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's Cabinet?

    The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.

    Sam , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    Pat Buchanan got it right in these very pages with "Whose War Anyway?".
    Ken Hoop , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started. The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html

    There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
    Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.

    Chris Chuba , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact? Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.

    Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.

    The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously, Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.

    William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."

    I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:

    (1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it."

    (2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."

    Rock Sash , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the misguided nature of our overall mission.
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.

    After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades.

    The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws, to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war economic successes of Germany and Japan.

    Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.

    The Other Sands , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:39 pm
    "Nobody elected your family
    And we didn't elect your friends
    No one voted for your advisors
    And nobody wants amends

    You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    Arlo Guthrie, Presidential Rag

    Lenny , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm
    So Bush is not to blame for this, but Clinton is responsible for Benghazi?
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm
    @The Other Sands:

    "You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/world/2000-campaign-advisor-bush-s-foreign-policy-tutor-academic-public-eye.html?pagewanted=all

    "Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness for the White House. "

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/

    "While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/13/uselections2000.usa9

    "Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor, having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico. He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:01 pm
    "I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."

    I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:

    1. the long term application of the PA

    2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.

    3. Not invading Iraq at all

    I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative thought would have steered a far different course.
    _____________________

    I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies. To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.

    The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability. And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their choices by blaming the upper echelons.

    The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH, but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no fly lists".

    Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates authority.

    As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this article in my view.

    I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company. But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.

    The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small number of choices were undermined by others.

    Still those choices were his to make.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number of democrats and liberals.

    Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.

    So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use of the military in both campaigns.

    Complicity in the act -

    Paul Windels , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:17 am
    The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.

    I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.

    BTW is John Hay a nom de plume?

    Chris Chuba , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:54 am
    Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you, it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
    No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed, I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
    Connecticut Farmer , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi. And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:35 am
    @Connecticut Farmer
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.

    It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )

    OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything.

    Steve J , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
    It's an interesting piece. I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to do after the invasion that would have prevented fragmentation.

    I am inclined to agree with a piece by General Odom some time back - in particular myth number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Ken Hoop , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:08 am
    Chris Chuba

    "Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war, period.

    As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk of sharing
    in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
    Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.

    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:34 am
    @ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."

    You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.

    But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially and put in place a state-run health care system.

    MIke Glatt , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:38 am
    Imagine if Obama had presided over this cluster$#@% and
    then tried to blame his policymakers.
    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm
    baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades."

    Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?

    Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular, as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic stimulus.

    Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur that would destroy a free market.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

    PermReader , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Russian chief tale of a good tsar and bad boyars.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    @Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.

    OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.

    Useful reading:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm

    The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

    Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

    Emilio , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm
    Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:

    I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair? By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that the risks have been mitigated?

    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm
    @Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.

    I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies (and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.

    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism. It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    "Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything."

    I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".

    Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.

    The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.

    The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.

    On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has been held accountable in either admin.

    Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.

    In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very well.

    Myron Hudson , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:42 pm
    Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of administrations".

    It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the crazies in the basement".

    Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they got it.

    It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.

    Lenny , says: October 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm
    Is this serious?
    If so, why would any sane person ever vote for a Republican candidate?
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 5:44 pm
    @EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus accountability for tactics.

    The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.

    Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any communications with Saddam on that point.

    Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.

    To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy, and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the first place.

    That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.

    Carol , says: October 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm
    Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
    Hosea McAdoo , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:00 pm
    He was President and Commander-in-Chief therefore totally responsible.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.

    ________________
    "The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."

    In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters worse.

    And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.

    AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty and basic policing.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women playingthat role.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Beppe Grillo The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The Experts Destroyed It

    An interesting variant of rotation of elite...
    Notable quotes:
    "... echo chamber ..."
    "... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
    "... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
    "... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
    "... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
    "... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
    "... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
    "... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
    "... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
    "... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
    "... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
    "... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
    "... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
    "... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
    "... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
    "... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
    "... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by amateurs.

    euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless, hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers, that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake "expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political tsunami in modern history.

    One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully theirs.

    ... ... ...

    Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
    "It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way – doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New York Times – but, in the end, he won.

    "That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised – and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.

    "With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."

    euronews
    "There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."

    Beppe Grillo
    "We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.

    "We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that."

    euronews
    "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs

    "And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.

    "If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    euronews
    "Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example "

    Beppe Grillo
    "Yes, I agree."

    euronews
    "Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack. Why?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions or by making agreements with others.

    "From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name.

    "This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it."

    euronews
    "You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament, there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.

    "We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the European parliament."

    euronews

    "One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning certain politicians.

    "President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"

    Beppe Grillo

    "I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven."

    euronews
    "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    euronews
    "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.

    "I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.

    "In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising a clear 'yes-no' referendum."

    euronews
    "That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn. Many people's views have done u-turns."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."

    euronews
    "Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe? Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."

    euronews
    "Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there."

    euronews
    "In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who are you supporting?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."

    euronews
    "Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."

    Beppe Grillo
    "It's already lost for him."

    euronews
    "If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as a consequence, neither are we.

    "From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform the Senate to make the process quicker?"

    euronews
    "Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "No, no. I was never in the race. Never."

    euronews
    "So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The time is fast approaching."

    euronews
    "Really? A projection?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."

    BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM

    euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

    Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM

    Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...

    Obama:
    Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
    "Helped" Libya
    Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    2) (Cont) But in the end what Obama did that is unforgivable is increasing centralization in a complex system.

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    3) Don't fughet Obama is leaving us a Ponzi scheme, added ~8 trillions in debt with rates at 0. If they rise, costs of deficit explode...

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 20, 2016

    LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:20 AM

    Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.

    Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM

    Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]- technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!

    NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM

    "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!

    As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"

    Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.

    Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed "Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.

    lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM

    You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."

    tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM

    Which experts do you mean Beppe ?

    All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.

    Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )

    Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )

    Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)

    Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )

    Blair ( war criminal )

    and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )

    caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM

    It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.

    The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Michael T. Flynn, Michael Ledeen

    Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
    "... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
    "... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
    "... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
    "... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
    "... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
    "... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
    "... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
    "... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.amazon.com

    SomeRandomGuy July 17, 2016

    We're at war, but few people know it... or are willing to accept it.

    When I had heard in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee, I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this up.

    The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities.

    If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.

    There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events. That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this is not a seminal work on

    Amazon Customer on November 11, 2016

    A critically important work for western civilization.

    General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.

    He supports what he can tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.

    Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years. General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster. Please buy and read this book!

    David Firester on September 2, 2016

    Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few Others Do.

    To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages, right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points, which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential read.

    In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions. Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name. As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their careers.

    In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.' Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this, he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage" on p. 154.)

    Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces. In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again, this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was bureaucratic in nature.

    The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy" (p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.

    General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan). He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.

    Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy. General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages 127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort to undermine them.

    The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that, coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment. Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.

    Bob Baker on August 4, 2016
    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, ...

    It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.

    The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.

    My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.

    Amazon Customer on August 1, 2016
    A GREAT BOOK FOR UNDERSTANDING THE WAR ON TERROR

    At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.

    Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.

    We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for the good cause of freedom.

    My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!

    Amazon Customer DCC on July 30, 2016
    recommend you read " Heretic

    I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world, ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around radical interpretations of the Qur'an.

    Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.

    If you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now" , by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC

    Aaron Rudroff on July 26, 2016
    To be continued...

    Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam.

    One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."

    As if there is any relationship to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless, as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors who's authority is founded on political Islam.

    In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long war.

    Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure, a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind, Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy and at most an operational strategy.

    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.

    Terry M Petty on July 16, 2016
    Flynn does great with military intelligence, needs more cultural intelligence

    Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.

    This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
    Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years, right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in this craziness.

    To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches as well as armed force.
    I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic abilities.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Most individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling.

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23

    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.

    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President was elected.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trumps Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
    "... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
    "... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
    "... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM ,

    Trump's Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/11/20/trumps-appointment-of-pompeo-as...

    jfb CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.

    What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything will fall apart.

    And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.

    Setarcos jfb Nov 20, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the 1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland, with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated, nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.

    It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite, or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.

    francis scott f... Nov 20, 2016 2:09 AM ,

    BE CAREFUL, MR TRUMP

    If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.

    And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.

    Lynn Trainor francis scott falseflag Nov 20, 2016 5:53 AM ,
    Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
    GraveDancer Nov 20, 2016 3:24 AM ,
    Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.

    Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Umberto Eco emphasized the extent to which fascism is ad hoc and opportunistic. Its features include a cult of action for actions sake, where thinking is a form of emasculation ; an intolerance of analytical criticism, where disagreement is condemned; a profound fear of difference, where leaders appeal against intruders ; appeals to individual and social frustration and specifically a frustrated middle class suffering from feelings of political humiliation and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups

    Trump position is somewhat misrepresented. In his speeches he also points out to dominance of financial oligarchy and predatory behaviour of corporation outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labour.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A cult of "action for action's sake ..."
    "... Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak, that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore," he said in his announcement speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.slate.com

    One of the most-read takes on fascism comes from Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco in an essay for the New York Review of Books titled " Ur-Fascism ." Eco emphasizes the extent to which fascism is ad hoc and opportunistic. It's "philosophically out of joint," he writes, with features that "cannot be organized into a system" since "many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanacticism."

    With that said, it is true that there are fascist movements, and it's also true that when you strip their cultural clothing-the German paganism in Nazism, for example-there are common properties. Not every fascist movement shows all of them, but-Eco writes-"it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." Eco identifies 14, but for this column, I want to focus on seven. They are: A cult of "action for action's sake ," where "thinking is a form of emasculation"; an intolerance of "analytical criticism," where disagreement is condemned; a profound "fear of difference," where leaders appeal against "intruders"; appeals to individual and social frustration and specifically a "frustrated middle class" suffering from "feelings of political humiliation and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups"; a nationalist identity set against internal and external enemies (an "obsession with a plot"); a feeling of humiliation by the "ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies"; a "popular elitism" where "every citizen belongs to the best people of the world" and underscored by contempt for the weak; and a celebration of aggressive (and often violent) masculinity.

    ... ... ...

    Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak, that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore," he said in his announcement speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity." He continued: "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," and "Our enemies are getting stronger and stronger by the way, and we as a country are getting weaker." This includes unauthorized immigrants, and now refugees, whom he attacks as a menace to ordinary Americans. The former, according to Trump, take jobs and threaten American safety-"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."-while the latter are a "Trojan horse." But Trump promises action. He will cut new deals and make foreign competitors subordinate. He will deport immigrants and build a wall on the border, financed by Mexico. He will bring " spectacular " economic growth. And Trump isn't an ideologue; he's an opportunist who borrows freely from both parties.

    ... ... ...

    Alone and disconnected, this rhetoric isn't necessarily fascist... In the Europe of the 1920s and '30s, fascist parties organized armed gangs to intimidate political opponents. Despite assaults at Trump events, that still seems unlikely....

    [Nov 19, 2016] Trump and the Neoconservatives by Jon Basil Utley

    Notable quotes:
    "... as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls. ..."
    "... But more unending wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda. Long ago I wrote about him, in "John Bolton and U.S. Lawlessness," "The Bush administration's international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservatives." I quoted Bolton, "It is a big mistake to for us to grant any validity to international law because over the long term, the goal of those who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." In fact I set up a web page, the John Bolton File , containing various links about him and the neocons.

    Nearly all of Donald Trump's appointments to his transition team are very encouraging. Indeed, I have known many of them for years. But he could undermine his whole agenda by allowing neocons back into their former staffing and leadership role over Republican foreign policy. The New York Times reported how many are now scrambling to get back into their old dominant positions. And now National Review , which supported all the disasters in Iraq, has come out to promote Bolton for secretary of state.

    I have written about the neocons for many years. Their originators were former leftists who later became anti-communists. After the collapse of communism, they provided the intellectual firepower for hawks and imperialists who wanted an aggressive American foreign policy. Having lived and done business for many years in the Third World, I thought they would only bring about disasters for America. What especially interested me was their almost total lack of experience in and knowledge about the outside world, particularly Asia and Latin America. I even set up a web page called War Party Neoconservative Biographies as I researched their education and experience.

    Brilliant academics as many of them were, their "foreign" experience was at best a semester or two in London or, for the more daring, some studies in Paris or, for the Jewish ones, a summer on a kibbutz in Israel.

    They are above all Washington insiders. John Bolton is very typical. A summa cum laude graduate of Yale, then Yale Law School, time with a top Washington law firm, and then various academic and political appointments, but no foreign living or work experience.

    Also, as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls.

    Long ago Peter Viereck explained them with his observation about the vicarious "lust of many intellectuals for brute violence." No wonder they urged Bush on to his disastrous war and occupation policies. Even before Iraq they were first urging dominance over Russia and then military confrontation with China, when a U.S. spy plane was collided by a Chinese fighter plane. It wasn't just the Arab world which was in their sights.

    I write about all this based on my own experience of studying in Germany and France, working 15 years in South America, and speaking four languages fluently.

    Trump appointments so far are really showing his focus upon getting America back on track with faster economic growth, which has been so stunted by Obama's runaway regulatory regime. To understand their costs, see analysis in the Competitive Enterprise Institute's "Ten Thousand Commandments."

    But more unending wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. Few would now doubt that America has crossed this threshold. When it costs us a million dollars per year per man to field combat infantry in unending wars, we will face economic ruin just like happened with the Roman Empire.

    The risk is that Trump's foreign-affairs transition team becomes infiltrated. Much of the transition is being run out of the Heritage Foundation, which was a big promoter of the Iraq War.

    Mainly, however, Vice President Mike Pence, who heads up the transition team, was another war wanter and still supports the neoconservative agenda-e.g., he strongly supported the attack on Libya . He also wants much more military spending.

    Pence is great on domestic issues but not on foreign policy. Although a Catholic, he also is very close to those evangelicals who believe that supporting Israel's expansion will help to speed up the second coming of Christ and, consequently, Armageddon. One must assume that he, together with the military-industrial complex, is plugging for the neoconservatives again to work their agenda upon America and the world.

    Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] The American Conservative Movement Has Ended. The American Right Goes On by Peter Brimelow

    Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
    "... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
    "... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
    "... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
    "... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
    "... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
    "... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
    "... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.unz.com
    The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions. Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of tribe , nation , even race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.

    This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians.

    But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who harbored messianic fantasies about "global democracy" and and America as the first "universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.

    I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"

    I'm going to quote from John Kasich: blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although he did favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends in the minority community."

    That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.

    Marco Rubio said:

    it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.

    Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic, classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic, Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."

    In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:

    I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country.

    Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and various Republican politicians. Somebody called John Hart , who writes a thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:

    Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't about conserving; it's about growth.

    [ Conservatism is Still A Second Language to Donald Trump Opportunity Lives, January 7, 2016]

    "Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember 1957 . As I said, I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over.

    Why did it end? After Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us immigration patriots from National Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.

    darknessatnoonBut there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why the Old Bolsheviks all testified against themselves in the treason trials during Stalin's Great Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel, Darkness At Noon [ PDF ] by Arthur Koestler , one of the most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.

    Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent ]

    Good.

    Well, when Nikita Khrushchev got up and denounced Stalin in at the party conference in 1956, he was asked about this. Why did all these Old Bolsheviks turn turtle like this? And his answer was: "Beat, beat, beat."

    In other words, there is no complex psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

    When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and I started by working for John Ashbrook (not Ashcroft , Ash brook ) against Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them. And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only become clear in the last five to ten years.

    I think, in retrospect, with Buckley , who subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there was some financial transaction. I think that now.

    It's an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.

    So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.

    But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.

    So, I guess my bottom line here is: " Don't despair ."

    Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

    [Nov 19, 2016] What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss And Abuses At Italys Largest Bank

    Notable quotes:
    "... Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon. ..."
    "... He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems. ..."
    "... Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,

    Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.

    As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.

    Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently posted on his blog here.

    Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament

    Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking whistleblowers met and told their stories in the European parliament . The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the Irish regulator.

    He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems.

    In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would have been told that Italy's largest Bank was in serious breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi.

    Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty.

    Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the law?

    http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblower-protection-what-must-be-done

    [Nov 19, 2016] M of A - Open Thread (NOT U.S. Election) 2016-39

    Notable quotes:
    "... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
    "... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
    "... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
    "... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    nmb | Nov 18, 2016 1:59:59 PM | 1
    The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Stevens | Nov 18, 2016 2:16:40 PM | 2
    Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.

    I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture. But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.

    It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:

    1. Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
    2. Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
    3. Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the government(after they attacked the government)
    4. Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to overthrow a brutal regime!"
    5. Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
    6. Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
    7. Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.

    All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.

    I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from countries that are targets of regime change.

    The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.

    ben | Nov 18, 2016 2:34:13 PM | 3
    Stevens @ 2: Great post, thanks.

    This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.

    ALberto | Nov 18, 2016 3:00:02 PM | 4
    I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations with the Batista Regiem.

    When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty seems to know no bounds?

    Just my opinion

    Jen | Nov 18, 2016 3:01:27 PM | 5
    Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.

    The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".

    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    /div>
    james | Nov 18, 2016 3:36:30 PM | 7
    @2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..

    M K Bhadrakumar's latest..

    meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..

    meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey.. erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.

    Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?

    MR KIRBY: No, I do not."

    it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 3:49:18 PM | 8
    @5
    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump.

    /div>
    VietnamVet | Nov 18, 2016 4:56:50 PM | 17
    The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 4:58:30 PM | 18
    Who decides which news is fake? Sounds like an easy way to limit freedom of speech and of the press.

    Why can't people be allowed to decide for themselves which news is fake?

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 5:01:17 PM | 19
    As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.

    /div>
    peter | Nov 18, 2016 5:16:47 PM | 21
    It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will be cleansed of jihadis as a result.

    But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments in the region.

    Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting that is for Israel.

    Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern Syria are bye-bye.

    Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.

    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 5:28:28 PM | 22
    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now.

    Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So, it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist cabal.

    jdmckay | Nov 18, 2016 5:47:15 PM | 23
    Who decides which news is fake?

    Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.

    Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:

    He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I never thought he'd actually get elected."

    Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.

    chipnik | Nov 18, 2016 5:52:07 PM | 24
    ....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.

    Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains 'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/

    MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime. Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.

    /div>
    karlof1 | Nov 18, 2016 7:20:53 PM | 29
    Ted Rall makes the important distinction that Trump's fascism will continue and build upon Obama's fascism, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/18/trumps-fascism-picks-up-where-obamas-left-off/

    Liberal Fascism is the hallmark of the Outlaw US Empire since its inception.

    /div>
    Brad | Nov 18, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 31
    http://www.rferl.org/a/us-house-votes-renew-iran-sanctions-sanction-syrian-backers-iran-russia/28119954.html

    Trump getting forced by Obama and deep state

    jfl | Nov 18, 2016 7:45:28 PM | 32
    @2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.'

    The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they 'need' killin'.

    Julian | Nov 18, 2016 9:18:56 PM | 40
    Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?

    In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.

    He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!

    dh | Nov 18, 2016 9:23:16 PM | 41
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....

    "The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee" a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-dangerous-and-shortsighted-push-to-contain-iran/

    [Nov 18, 2016] Course Correction

    Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk... But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil) by neocon worth reading.
    Notable quotes:
    "... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
    "... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
    "... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
    "... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
    "... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    ...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war, Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.

    As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.

    Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent history of violent internal conflict.

    Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it would emerge from this was entirely predictable.

    The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?

    ... ... ...

    Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach. Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian, this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.

    Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States, Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.

    Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow, encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.

    Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a confrontation with an adversarial Russia?

    The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem. Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.

    AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S. policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.

    ... ... ...

    For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.

    ... ... ...

    If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.

    Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S. leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety. Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided consensus.

    Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest. Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.

    [Nov 18, 2016] A very conservative butcher bill of US neocons that does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place -- for you Dear Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie. ..."
    "... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
    "... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:18:20 PM | 33

    Dear Americans,

    I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you think about this:

    1. First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
    2. Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
    3. Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
    4. Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
    5. Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
    6. Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
    7. Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded. According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
    8. Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry

    Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

    Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie.

    Sincerely,

    One who does not worry about you.

    PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.

    okie farmer | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:10 PM | 34
    https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter
    Lochearn | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:11 PM | 35
    @ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel, neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
    psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2016 7:07:27 PM | 36
    @ Lochearn

    Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.

    Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".

    Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...

    Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction.

    stumpy | Nov 17, 2016 9:37:19 PM | 45
    @32

    Nicely done. The other image that I find humorous is the dancing W at the Dallas police killings memorial.

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:01:11 PM | 46
    >>>>virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary.
    No they're not - that is chicken feed to them. A few hundred dollars each out of their bonuses will cover that, perhaps the cost of a meal out.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

    Final anti-Russian tour by neocon Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
    "... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
    "... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
    "... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
    www.rt.com

    US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for a further year over the situation in Ukraine.

    President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.

    Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.

    "The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions, including NATO," the White House added.

    Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    "We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov said.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.

    "The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk," Peskov said.

    Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States "are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing the perceived dangers.

    [Nov 16, 2016] President Obama Deserves an Oscar by Robert Weissberg

    Pretty biting assessment ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
    "... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
    "... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
    "... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
    "... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
    "... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
    "... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
    "... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
    "... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
    "... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
    "... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
    "... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
    "... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
    "... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
    "... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
    "... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
    "... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
    "... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
    "... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
    "... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
    "... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
    "... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?

    I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

    When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment. Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.

    Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed, personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C" work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless, you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar, and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.

    But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.

    To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing"). This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS.

    But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A Beautiful Mind might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar. To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.

    Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.

    Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy). But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple "pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic black attire.

    Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish expressions.

    Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances. No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality. The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being "conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done. I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).

    Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political Science Association told me to do it this way."

    Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."

    Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry Gates dustup in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings. You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.

    Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are on the Right Side of History"?

    I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.

    Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.


    Carlton Meyer says: • Website

    November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words

    This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.

    Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.

    As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but

    Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.


    3.anon says:

    November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words

    What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ??
    How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero academic competency ??


    6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT

    Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.

    8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words

    Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.

    Why does anyone still find this surprising?

    11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words

    The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.

    12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words

    Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked Obama as an "empty chair").

    I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years.

    He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures, and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.

    It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.

    This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.

    It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people tell me I did a great job!

    13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT

    It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.


    15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Anon

    "I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."

    Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.


    16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.


    17.Jim Christian says:

    November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Anon

    PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.

    Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.


    20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT

    Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when Presidents.

    21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT

    So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.


    22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT

    Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent". America is a society run by and for phonies.

    23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the anti-commie Cold War Crusade.

    The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..

    24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @CCZ

    I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager.

    25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.

    Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.

    "There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.

    More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust movies have won at least one Oscar ..

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/26/barack-obama-holocaust-is-a-religion/

    27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @Tom Welsh

    Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another.

    I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle.

    - H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)

    28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words

    The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped. What choice did the American people have?

    He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain gotten into office?

    Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.

    American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?

    29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words

    President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers, mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers, developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft professors.

    Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making speeches and appearances. Tough job .

    30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.

    32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT

    Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/

    34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT

    @AndrewR

    "Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager."

    AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of hardware store managers in this country.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Rotation of Imperial Power by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
    "... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
    "... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
    "... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
    "... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
    "... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
    "... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
    www.voltairenet.org

    Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.

    How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale. This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.

    As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President, her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions" against "dictators" charged with "genocide".

    As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia.

    Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment, particularly on military expenditure from the allies.

    Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House itself depends.

    Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).

    Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse.

    Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.

    It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Why corruption threatens US security

    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carla November 16, 2016 at 8:26 am

    On PRI's The World, Sarah Chase, author of "Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security" finally addresses why corruption threatens U.S. security specifically.

    At the 23:00 mark on the audio:

    http://www.pri.org/programs/pris-world/pris-world-11152016

    I kept waiting for her to get to the U.S. throughout her book, but she really only hinted. Now she is more forthright. Apparently she was waiting for permission from Sanders, Trump and 70% of the American electorate.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
    "... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
    "... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
    "... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | rare.us
    Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct," Bolton said just last year.

    Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."

    "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy," Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."

    Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.

    You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.

    Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.

    In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."

    When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is 100 percent right .

    No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.

    All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.

    Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."

    Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

    But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes The American Conservative's Jon Utley.

    At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.

    The man is a menace.

    Rand Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Over half of Ukraines population lives below poverty level

    Nov 15, 2016 | eadaily.com
    Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.

    In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty line in Central and Eastern Europe."

    The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics, savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the current exchange rate).

    The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).

    Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and "money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.

    [Nov 15, 2016] Suspected 5th Column blogger Streetwise Professor Defends Elites

    Notable quotes:
    "... Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it. ..."
    "... When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. ..."
    "... " Markets " do not " demand " anything. ..."
    "... But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. ..."
    "... They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees. ..."
    "... Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. ..."
    "... If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC. ..."
    "... It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing. ..."
    "... Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces." ..."
    "... I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON. ..."
    "... Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights ..."
    "... Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection ..."
    "... It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties . ..."
    "... Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity. ..."
    "... What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows. ..."
    "... A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. ..."
    "... The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on November 14, 2016 by Clive

    Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.

    When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. Or at least going along with it on the promise of continued employment. While I'm letting myself off the hook in the process, I think that's forgivable. I and others like me need the money. Besides, in our spare time, we might try to atone for our misdeeds by using whatever means we have available, such as contributing to Naked Capitalism in whatever way we can, to try to set the record straight.

    Not quite so easily forgivable, though, are the members of an altogether different cadre who don't give the impression of having to live paycheck to paycheck. What is it that motivates them? Why do they willingly devise clever - and, I have to say it, some are exceptionally adept - ruses to defend and further the causes of our élites?

    ... ... ...

    As readers with not-so-long memories will recall, in the run-up to the Global Financial Crisis, the TBTFs did indeed exercise the " FU Option ". As asset prices for the securities they held fell precipitously, they held more and more of those assets on their balance sheets, refusing to - or unable to - off-load them into a market that was shunning them. Eventually their capital cushions were so depleted because of this, they became insolvent. Staring catastrophe in the face, governments were put into a double-bind by the TBTFs: Rescue us through bail-outs or stand by and see our societies suffer major collateral damage (bank runs, a collapse of world trade, ruining of perfectly good and solvent businesses with the likelihood of mass unemployment and civil unrest).

    In that situation, who was the " U " who was being " F "'ed? It was governments and the public.

    Faced with an asymmetry of power, in a reverse of the scenario painted by the Streetwise Professor for OTC trading (where a notional seller tells a theoretical buyer they can go to Hell if they don't want to pay the price the seller is asking), governments - and us - found themselves on the buy-side of an " FU Option ". "F the-rest-of-us By Necessity" was a better description as we were turned into forced buyers of what no other "market participant" would touch.

    My dear Professor, allow me to give you , if I may risk the label of being impudent, a lesson. If I am selling my prized Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups in a yard sale and you make me a offer for them, that - I'm sure we'd agree on this point - is an OTC transaction. There's no exchange (mercifully) for Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups. I put a price sticker on them. If you want them, you pay the price I'm asking. Or else, you make me a different offer. If you don't pay the price I want, or I don't accept the price you're offering, we do, indeed, have a genuine " FU Option " scenario. But if instead my mother-in-law threatens to saw your face off with her cheese grater if you don't buy my Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups at the price shown on the sticker, then we no longer have an OTC transaction. We have extortion. See the difference?

    That's not all. The piece discusses the differences between a proposed smart-contract based settlement compared with a centralised counterparty which brings up some very valid points. But then it makes a serious blunder which is introduced with some subtly but is all the more dangerous because of it. I'll highlight the problem:

    So the proposal does some of the same things as a CCP, but not all of them, and in fact omits the most important bits that make central clearing central clearing. To the extent that these other CCP services add value–or regulation compels market participants to utilize a CCP that offers these services–market participants will choose to use a CCP, rather than this service. It is not a perfect substitute for central clearing, and will not disintermediate central clearing in cases where the services it does not offer and the functions it does not perform are demanded by market participants , or by regulators.

    Did you catch what is the most troubling thing in that paragraph? The technicalities of it are fine, but the bigger framing is perilous. "Market participants" is given agency. And put on the same level as actions taken by regulators. This is at best unintentionally misleading and at worse an entirely deliberate falsehood.

    The fallacious thinking which caused it is due to a traditional economist's mind-set. But this mind-set is hopelessly wrong and every time we encounter it, we must challenge it. Regardless of what other progressive goodies it is being bundled up with.

    " Markets " do not " demand " anything.

    A regulator or central bank can demand that a bank hold more capital and open its books to check the underlying asset quality. The CFPB can demand that Wells Fargo stops opening fake accounts. Even I can demand a pony. The power structures, laws, enforcement and levels of trust (to name the main constraints) governing who is demanding what from whom determine how likely they will be to have their demands met.

    But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. The pricing signal cannot make any potential actor participate in that transaction. Not, probably, that it would have helped her much, but Hillary Clinton could have created a market for left-wing bloggers to shill for Obamacare by offering Lambert $1million to start churning out pro-ACA posts on his blog. But that market which Hillary could create could not "demand" Lambert accept her offer. Lambert would not take that, or any other monetary amount, and would never enter such a transaction. Markets have limits.

    Whether unintentionally or by design, we have a nice example of bait and switch in the Streetwise Professor's Blockchain article. If you run a critique of Blockchain, you'll likely attract an anti-libertarian audience. It's a classic example of nudge theory . If you can lure readers in with the promise of taking a swipe at disruptive innovation nonsense but then lead them to being suckered into a reinforcement of failed conventional free-market hogwash, that can be a powerful propaganda tool.

    But perhaps the Blockchain feature was an aberration, just a one-off? No.

    Take, for example, this feature on Deutsche Bank from earlier this month which I'll enter as Exhibit B - It's not the TBTFs Fault, the Regulators / Governments / Some Guy / Made Us Do It

    I'll leave the worst 'til last, but for now let's start with this little treasure:

    the pre-crisis political bargain was that banks would facilitate income redistribution policy by provide credit to low income individuals. This seeded the crisis (though like any complex event, there were myriad other contributing causal factors), the political aftershocks of which are being felt to this day. Banking became a pariah industry, as the very large legal settlements extracted by governments indicate.

    No, Streetwise Professor, banks did not provide credit to low income individuals as part of some "political bargain". They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees.

    Almost unimaginable wealth could be generated by individuals (the Naked Capitalism archive details the full sordid story of the likes of Magnetar). The fact that this would all blow up eventually was certainly predicable and even known by many actors in the prevailing milieu but they didn't care. They knew they'd have already set themselves up for life financially even after just a few years in that "game". Politics, for once, had nothing to do with it, save perhaps that regulators, which are the politicians' responsibility, should have been better able to spot what was going on.

    But the Streetwise Professor is only just getting started with the counterfactual misinformation:

    It is definitely desirable to have mechanisms to hold financial malfeasors accountable, but the Deutsche episode illustrates several difficulties. The first is that even the biggest entities can be judgment proof, and imposing judgments on them can have disastrous economic externalities. Another is that there is a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process, and the results of the process. There is little due process here, and the risks and costs of litigation mean that the outcome of attempts to hold bankers accountable is the result of a negotiation between the state and large financial institutions that is carried out in a highly politicized environment in which emotions and narratives are likely to trump facts. There is room for serious doubt about the quality of justice that results from this process.

    A casual skim could leave the reader with the impression that the Streetwise Professor is lamenting, rightly, the persistency of the TBTF model. But there's something really dastardly being concocted here - the notion that in our societies, the rule of law is always and inevitably fallible and not fit for the purpose of bringing errant TBTFs to justice. And that, if a case is brought against a TBTF like Deutsche, then it can't help but become a political football.

    Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. Any quick parse through the judgments which the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.K. Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice (to name only a few) hand down on complex cases - often running to hundreds or even a thousand pages - demonstrates that courts can and do consider fairly and justly the evidence that prosecutors present and make balanced rulings. And banks can utilize the same legal safeguards that the law provides - they're not likely to be short of good legal advice options. Trying, as the Steetwise Professor does, to claim that the TBTFs can't get justice is an insult to our judicial systems and acceptance of this notion followed by any routine repetition serves to undermine faith in the rule of law.

    If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC.

    It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing.

    In summary, when you throw brickbats at a fellow blogger, it seems to me that you have a moral obligation to put your cards on the table, to explain your motivations. I don't have to write for a living ("just as well", I hear forbearing readers shout back). I don't take a penny from Naked Capitalism's hard-wrung fundraisers, although Yves has generously offered a very modest stipend in line with other contributors, I cannot conscientiously take anything for what I submit. I write in the hope that I have some small insights that would help to undo some of the damage which big finance has done to our cultures, our shared values and our aspirations for what we hope the future will be for us and others.

    That's what motivates me, anyway. After reading his output, I'm really still not at all sure what is motivating the Streetwise Professor. Certainly there is nothing at all to suggest that he is interested in rebuking or revising any of the traditional thought-forms which pass for the so-called science of economics. Conventional economic theory is the ultimate in betrayal of the use of rational methodology to provide air-cover for élite power grabs. It'll take more than a refutation of Blockchain spin to convince me that the Streetwise Professor is ready to kick away the more odious ladders - like being a professional economist - that have given him the leg-ups to the lofty perch he enjoys occupying.

    About Clive

    Survivor of nearly 30 years in a TBTF bank. Also had the privilege of working in Japan, which was great, selling real estate, which was an experience bordering on the psychedelic. View all posts by Clive →

    vlade November 14, 2016 at 7:15 am

    I disagree on the first bit. Even at this blog, Yves mentiones not quite rarely the dangers of tight coupling. The central exchanges create exactly that. Yes, the FU option of OTC is dangerous. But then, everything is dangerous, and if I have to choose between tight coupling dangerous option and loose coupling one, I'll chose the lose coupling one.

    The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.

    To me all the para says is: markets demand services, and CCP don't offer them – and don't have to. Regulators demand services (to be offered by CCP), and CCP deliver.

    And sorry, I also disagree with your "markets participants demand". The text says "services [ ] are demanded [by potential clients and by regulators]". I can't honestly see what's the problem with that. Of course, regulatory demand, and a client demand are two different things – the former you ignore at your peril, the second you can ignore to your heart's content.

    But markets (or, I'd say agents that want to purchase – or sell) _always_ demand something, and always offer something – otherwise there would not be any market or exchange of services (it doesn't have to be there even with offer and demand, but in the absence of one it definitely won't be there).

    You could happily change the word to "require" "want" etc. and the meaning of the para would remain unchanged.

    Clive Post author November 14, 2016 at 8:20 am

    The problem I had with the notion that OTC reduces tight coupling is that it gives the appearance of reducing tight couple but doesn't actually do this. While "the market" is functioning within its expected parameters, OTC is less tightly coupled than an Exchange. But as we saw first-hand in the GFC, those markets function, right up until the point where they don't. By continuing to function, or certainly giving the appearances of continuing to be functioning, they hide the stresses which are building up within them but no-one can see. Unless you are deeply plumbed in to the day-to-day operational activities of the OTC market and can spot signs - and that's all they are, signs, you don't get to take a view of the whole edifice - you simply don't have a clue. There were, at most, only a couple of dozen people in the organisation itself and outside it who knew that my TBTF was a day away from being unable to open for business. That was entirely down to information asymmetry and that asymmetry was 100% down to OTC prevalence.

    And all the while TBTF isn't fixed, then as soon as the OTC market(s) fall off a cliff, the public provision backstops can be forced to kick in. Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces and they expect me to sort the mess out. If that is the dynamic, and to me, it most definitely is, then I want the actors who are engaged in the dangerous things to be highly visible, I want them right where I can see them. Not hiding their high-risk activities in an OTC venue that I'm not privy to.

    And I stick by my objection to the - what I can't see how it isn't being deliberate - fuzziness or obfuscation about who gets to "demand" and who is merely allowed "invite" parties to a transaction to either perform or not perform of their own volition. This isn't an incidental semantic about vocabulary. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the Streetwise Professor's assessment of innovation.

    Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces. My biggest lambaste of the Streetwise Professor's commentaries is that he examines them only in terms of "technology" and "economics". In doing so, he reaches partial and inaccurate conclusions.

    A 10 year old child might "demand", "require", "ask for", "insist", "claim a right to have" (use whatever word or phrase you like there) a gun and live ammunition. But they are not, and should not be, permitted to enter into a transaction to obtain the said gun and ammo based only on the availability of the technology and the economics that would allow them to satisfy the seller's market clearing sale price if they saved their pocket money for a sufficient amount of time. The other forces I listed in my above paragraph are also involved, and just as well.

    Ulysses November 14, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces."

    Very well said. I would argue further that "power relationships" structure how all the other lenses actually operate. In the early sixteenth century the power relationship between the Church, and Martin Luther, was such that the latter had an opening to redefine "morality"– in such a way that the Pope's moral opinion was eventually no longer dispositive for Protestants.

    In other words, the French invasion of Italy, late in the fifteenth century, weakened the papal states enough to allow for defiance.

    Ulysses November 14, 2016 at 10:02 am

    That last sentence, is of course a gross over-simplification! Anyone wishing to know the nitty-gritty details of how foreign domination over the Italian peninsula was established by the middle of the sixteenth century should read Machiavelli and Guicciardini.

    The latter author's appeal to skepticism, when interpreting the actions and motivations of powerful people, rings very true five centuries later:

    " perché di accidenti tanto memorabili si intendino i consigli e i fondamenti; i quali spesso sono occulti, e divulgati il piů delle volte in modo molto lontano da quell che č vero."

    ( Storia d'Italia , XVI, vi)

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 5:12 am

    "Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces".

    I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON.

    And let's face it, much of the prior GFC behaviour was unreasonably dangerous. As it turned out, not that dangerous to its perpetrators .

    Danger, like risk, is a cost-benefit calculation. When that calculation ONLY includes benefits for its originator & suppresses any (real & calculatable) cost for the community it's already looking suspiciously like an unreasonable danger .

    Uahsenaa November 14, 2016 at 9:04 am

    The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.

    Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights as Warren tries to get her to give anything like a straight answer as to why, to this day, many if not most TBTFs have no rapid selloff/solvency plan (which is required by the Dodd-Frank law) or why those banks that fail their stress tests (again and again) suffer no consequences as a result.

    How is any of this supposed to work when so many are clearly acting in bad faith?

    bmeisen November 14, 2016 at 9:06 am

    Bravo bravo encore encore! Especially the characterization of Sorkin and the account of the crisis at the start of exhibit B. Clive for President!

    Synoia November 14, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.

    If you do not subscribe to the "cult mentality," although I'd prefer to call it a dogma, because it is a unswerving belief in an unproven fact in the face of evidence the fact is not only unproven, but wrong, one is "not a team player" and then penalized.

    If these libertarian want "open markets" and innovation they have to shed the human response to proof. In their behavior they are no better than the medieval pope, and his court, who did not want to believe a the earth travels around the sun.

    WJ November 14, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Medieval popes were probably more open to Pythagorean/Copernican cosmologies than early 17th century Jesuits (i.e. Bellarmine); the opposition of the latter to Galileo had nothing to do with science and everything to do with Protestantism and Protestant biblical interpretation. Bellarmine was wrong and what happened to Galileo was shameful. But many of the best astronomers of the time were in fact Jesuits, and the traditional way the story is told is inaccurate on almost every level (and a product of late 19th century Italian nationalism).

    susan the other November 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    this was very interesting stuff. Since a lot of things were coming together in the 90s and 2000s that were all connected in a mess too big to understand simply as immoral banking (freeing up capital like that was crazy but there must have been a reason to try it besides windfall profiteering and flat-out gambling), I imagine the following: Greenspan and the TBTFs knew returns were diminishing and set out to do something about it. Because growth and expanding markets were the only thing that could keep up with a demand by pension funds (and then little Bush's idiotic war) for a minimum 8% return. But growth was slowing down so the situation required clever manipulations and incomprehensible things like financial derivatives. Makes sense to me. And if this is even partially true then there was a political mandate all mixed up with the GFC. The banks really did crazy stuff, but with the blessing of the Fed. Later when Bernanke said about QE and nirp: "now we are in uncharted territory" he was fibbing – the Fed had been in uncharted territory, trying to make things work, for almost 20 years. And failing.

    madame de farge November 14, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection

    It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties .

    WORSE then a bunch of Used Car Salesman, but what else would you expect from people who KEEP the State Income taxes withheld from their employees checks

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 12:00 am

    > "how long does that take" and he said "minimum of ten years, 15 is better"

    Via Extra, Extra – Read All About It: Nearly All Binary Searches and Mergesorts are Broken Google Research, 2006:

    This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is 230 or greater (roughly a billion elements). This was inconceivable back in the '80s, when Programming Pearls was written, but it is common these days at Google and other places. In Programming Pearls, Bentley says "While the first binary search was published in 1946, the first binary search that works correctly for all values of n did not appear until 1962." The truth is, very few correct versions have ever been published, at least in mainstream programming languages.

    Sorting is, or ought to be, basic blocking and tackling. Very smart, not corrupt people worked on this. And yet, 2006 – 1946 = 60 years later, bugs are still being discovered.

    The nice thing about putting your cash in a coffee can in the back yard is that it won't evaporate because some hacker gets clever about big numbers.

    flora November 14, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity.

    What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows.

    flora November 14, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    What is the Streetwise Professor's (note the word "professor") real view? Has he thought much about it or simply imbibed his "owners'" views, making him a useful tool. I don't know.

    From the book "Listen, Liberal."

    " A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. Take the sort of complexity we saw in the financial instruments that drove the last financial crisis. For old-school regulators, I am told, undue financial complexity was an indication of likely fraud. But for the liberal class, it is the opposite: an indicator of sophistication. Complexity is admirable in its own right. The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public. "
    -Thomas Frank

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Doctrine The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
    "... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
    "... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
    "... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
    "... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

    On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."

    Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

    They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

    In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

    Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

    After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

    In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

    As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

    At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."

    A policy born of hubris.

    Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.

    How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

    The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

    What should Trump say?

    Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries' wars or pay other countries' bills.

    The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Nov 14, 2016] Note on the signs of decline of the US neoliberal empire

    crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.15.16 at 1:19 am 93

    Salazar 11.14.16 at 12:11 am #18

    > How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline?
    We can only speculate about signs of decline. From WaTimes ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/cal-thomas-america-shows-decline-signs-of-empires-/ )
    British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival." Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.) is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as 267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin, writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."

    The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism (called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from 9/11 or October 2008.

    One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.

    Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure, both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/ ) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.

    Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign of the decline of empire.

    Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .

    See also:

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
    globinfo freexchange
    A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from Jon Soltz , an Iraq War Veteran and founder of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the Clinton/Podesta complex had received about the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
    Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that " arming and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea " and that he helped to train the Iraqi Army, and " their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them ". He also writes that " there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars ".
    Most important parts of the short letter:
    Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them . Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted, once we introduce weapons, we have zero control over them . The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil war.
    Moreover, there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars . On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best: "We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics." Let's not make the same mistake again.
    Full letter:
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
    Recall that, another letter from Clinton email series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that Hillary had been seriously warned about the oncoming Syrian chaos , already since 2011.
    Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump elected as President – risks and opportunities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
    "... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
    "... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
    "... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
    "... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
    "... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.unz.com

    So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:

    I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .

    And Putin's reply was immediate:

    We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.

    Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.

    This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.

    This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat of Hillary and the victory of Trump.

    Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?

    I don't know. Nobody does.

    One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.

    I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided. I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the choice was simple: war or peace.

    Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.

    I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!

    Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ".

    The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation.

    The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.

    Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed. This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.

    Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.

    With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.

    If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?

    Only time will tell.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocon bottomfeeders now are having the second thoughts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
    "... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
    "... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.

    There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."

    Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.

    ... ... ...

    Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."

    Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.

    It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.

    There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers" for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't support their candidate.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 11, 2016] I ve been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    David November 10, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)

    The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking – most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
    Oh tempora, oh mores!

    Synoia November 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.

    craazyboy November 10, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    Surprise! Under "new" management.

    The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group

    makedoanmend November 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years (many, many) since I read it.

    And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.

    best

    [Nov 11, 2016] Trump voters want to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillarys receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco

    Notable quotes:
    "... Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels. ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/09/what-can-we-do/#comment-697744
    Howard Frant 11.10.16 at 1:41 am 138

    I talked to an elated Trump voter today. She had little to say about Trump, other than "Give him a chance." No, her elation was at the defeat of Hillary, and the attendant possibility that opened up to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels.

    ... ... ...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

    [Nov 11, 2016] Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for work as a special correspondent, whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a board member of IAC. Chelseas speaking fees were a mere 65 thousand dollars

    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 11.10.16 at 10:39 am 161

    ... .. ...

    @138 The woman is wrong. Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for 'work' as a special correspondent, whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a 'board member' of IAC. Chelsea's speaking fees were a mere $65 k per.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/chelsea-clinton-press-213596

    The NYT offers a more severe critique of the IAC board deal readable by clicking through the links. There will be those who see nothing improper about a fifth-estate firm paying a 31 year-old graduate student $600 k, or awarding her a board seat and stock options at $300k. Others may disagree, and perhaps with some good reason.

    The defeat of the democratic candidate by a rodeo clown is a slap in the face. Contra Manta @71 I do not believe that anything less than a slap in the face of this order would be enough to jar the successful and well-fed out of their state of complacency and indifference to the plight of both the blacks and whites left behind by 8 years of Democratic rule, and far longer when we're talking about urban African-Americans.

    As noted, I believe the Republican candidate to be far and away the more sober, safer choice both on domestic and foreign policy. Now we'll find out.

    Thanks for the kind words to Rich, Bruce, T, bob mc, and others.

    Best to you all.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] American And Saudi Weapons Recoverd From ISIS Positions In Mosul

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com

    " An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS, Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"

    .,. ... ...

    Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State positions. According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish government.

    US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case, according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the war.

    An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops " always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them." The commander went onto claim ISIS fighters are even transported by US aircraft to medical facilities in Syria and countries friendly to the group.

    In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down, with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash, but no response ever came.

    Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.

    Turkish special forces operatives have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments, have coincided with a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .

    Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." Saudi government officials, Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Last Stand for ISIS by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
    "... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
    "... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
    "... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
    "... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
    "... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
    "... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
    "... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Reprinted from EricMargolis.com

    As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.

    Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience.

    These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.

    In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.

    What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan, and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.

    ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage they have inflicted on the Arab world.

    Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime.

    Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS.

    The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.

    Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power

    The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.

    For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.

    The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening right now.

    In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.

    IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks. Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa

    When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against the paper tiger of ISIS.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Under the Din of the Presidential Race Lies a Once and Future Threat Cyberwarfare

    This neocon propagandists (or more correctly neocon provocateur) got all major facts wrong. And who unleashed Flame and Stuxnet I would like to ask him. Was it Russians? And who invented the concept of "color revolution" in which influencing of election was the major part of strategy ? And which nation instituted the program of covert access to email boxes of all major webmail providers? He should study the history of malware and the USA covert operations before writing this propagandist/provocateur opus to look a little bit more credible...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The 2016 presidential race will be remembered for many ugly moments, but the most lasting historical marker may be one that neither voters nor American intelligence agencies saw coming: It is the first time that a foreign power has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps influence, a United States election.

    And there is a foreboding sense that, in elections to come, there is no turning back.

    The steady drumbeat of allegations of Russian troublemaking - leaks from stolen emails and probes of election-system defenses - has continued through the campaign's last days. These intrusions, current and former administration officials agree, will embolden other American adversaries, which have been given a vivid demonstration that, when used with some subtlety, their growing digital arsenals can be particularly damaging in the frenzy of a democratic election.

    "Most of the biggest stories of this election cycle have had a cybercomponent to them - or the use of information warfare techniques that the Russians, in particular, honed over decades," said David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor of Foreign Policy, who has written two histories of the National Security Council. "From stolen emails, to WikiLeaks, to the hacking of the N.S.A.'s tools, and even the debate about how much of this the Russians are responsible for, it's dominated in a way that we haven't seen in any prior election."

    The magnitude of this shift has gone largely unrecognized in the cacophony of a campaign dominated by charges of groping and pay-for-play access. Yet the lessons have ranged from the intensely personal to the geostrategic.

    Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. Election systems, the underpinning of democracy, seem to be at such risk that it is unimaginable that the United States will go into another national election without treating them as "critical infrastructure."

    But President Obama has been oddly quiet on these issues. He delivered a private warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their final face-to-face encounter two months ago, aides say. Still, Mr. Obama has barely spoken publicly about the implications of foreign meddling in the election. His instincts, those who have worked with him on cyberissues say, are to deal with the problem by developing new norms of international behavior or authorizing covert action rather than direct confrontation.

    After a series of debates in the Situation Room, Mr. Obama and his aides concluded that any public retaliation should be postponed until after the election - to avoid the appearance that politics influenced his decision and to avoid provoking Russian counterstrikes while voting is underway. It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama will act after Tuesday, as his aides hint, or leave the decision about a "proportional response" to his successor.

    Cybersleuths, historians and strategists will debate for years whether Russia's actions reflected a grand campaign of interference or mere opportunism on the part of Mr. Putin. While the administration has warned for years about the possibility of catastrophic attacks, what has happened in the past six months has been far more subtle.

    Russia has used the techniques - what they call "hybrid war," mixing new technologies with old-fashioned propaganda, misinformation and disruption - for years in former Soviet states and elsewhere in Europe. The only surprise was that Mr. Putin, as he intensified confrontations with Washington as part of a nationalist campaign to solidify his own power amid a deteriorating economy, was willing to take them to American shores.

    The most common theory is that while the Russian leader would prefer the election of Donald J. Trump - in part because Mr. Trump has suggested that NATO is irrelevant and that the United States should pull its troops back to American shores - his primary motive is to undercut what he views as a smug American sense of superiority about its democratic processes.

    Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state who is vigorously supporting Hillary Clinton, wrote recently that Mr. Putin's goal was "to create doubt about the validity of the U.S. election results, and to make us seem hypocritical when we question the conduct of elections in other countries."

    If so, this is a very different use of power than what the Obama administration has long prepared the nation for.

    Four years ago, Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary at the time, warned of an impending "cyber Pearl Harbor" in which enemies could "contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country," perhaps in conjunction with a conventional attack.

    [Nov 07, 2016] http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/11/open-thread-2016-37.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8acbc7e970b

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Dean | Nov 6, 2016 11:06:56 AM | 89
    jfl @85

    He is one of the 5th column "Atlanticists" that want Russia in the western orbit and that can only happen with it on its knees groveling.

    Here is an article that explains the internal politics better:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/putins-biggest-failure/

    "...when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less power than western 'advisers' who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the 1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today. And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth, billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.

    Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former would be represented by Anatolii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.

    I call the group behind Medvedev the "Atlantic Integrationists" and the people behind Putin the "Eurasian Sovereignists". The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West as an equal partner and fully integrate Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the latter want to fully "sovereignize" Russia and then create a multi-polar international system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.

    What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc. Putin restored the "vertical [axis]of power" and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is to

    Reform the Russian political system
    Replace the 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin
    Reform the Russian economy"

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 3:37:54 PM | 96
    @85 dean

    Yes. I'm a little shy of the Saker, though. He has his own enthusiasms. I agree that the Russian Central Bank is a knot that needs to be untied ... but what central bank isn't?

    Somebody - the poster by that 'original' name - posted a link to How Harvard Lost Russia , detailing the corruption of the Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse. I view Medvedev and 'Atlanticist' cronies as of the same ilk.

    There was an amazing 'report' by Medvedev, printed at the Kremlin site, of the corruption entailed in the last Russian election, all against his party, of course. I wonder if that isn't how Medvedev himself didn't get his seat?

    jfl | Nov 6, 2016 5:56:12 PM | 100
    The Anti-Empire Report #146

    "The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful." Vice-President Dick Cheney – West Point lecture, June 2002

    Still on course ...

    @99 b4

    I think that Putin is not so much a neo-liberal - you cannot be serious ... 'if you are to believe Western press' - as buried under the snow-job of Western 'economics'. They give Nobel Prizes for Western economic snow, and he's not the only one intimidated by it, the only one who still believes 'There Is No Alternative'. The Chinese are on the same page ... they seem to be enjoying it, though.

    Raqqa is in dispute. Mike Whitney agrees with you . I wait to see ...

    Piotr Berman | Nov 6, 2016 7:45:20 PM | 102
    Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse...

    History repeats itself. First as a tragedy, and then as a farce. Western (and Polish) expert help reforming the economy of Ukraine. Polish detractors wonder if even the Volhynia massacres justify this kind of retribution.

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:35:58 PM | 105
    @103 dh.. wait! annie applepants and her dork husband to the rescue... or, dang - that didn't work... have to find some other stooges for the empire..

    james | Nov 6, 2016 8:38:28 PM | 106
    for anyone who missed all that, here is john helmers last article on the crazy couple who tried to conquer poland with neo con stupid-ness..
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=13866

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 04, 2016] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Anon

    October 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

    9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-and-the-orwellian-redefinition-of-conspiracy-theory/25339

    9/11 After 13 years
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

    The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory - Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/the-tide-is-turning-the-official-story-is-now-the-conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts/

    No Airliner Black Boxes Found at the World Trade Center? Senior Officials Dispute Official 9/11 Claim
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-airliner-black-boxes-found-at-the-world-trade-center-senior-officials-dispute-official-911-claim/5400891

    [Nov 04, 2016] 9-11 Truth - The Unz Review

    Oct 25, 2016 | The Unz Review

    For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    NosytheDuke, October 25, 2016 at 4:36 am GMT • 100 Words

    Only by constantly repeating to all and sundry the blatant falsehoods, frauds and meddling that are evident which absolutely contradict the official narrative of what happened can a tipping point be reached and the demands for a new, open and independent investigation be the unavoidable topic in political and social life.

    Only after a new, open and independent investigation and a ruthless holding to account of those responsible has taken place can America go about its business of being great because it is good. Good luck with that.

    3.MarkinLA, October 25, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT • 200 Words

    Remember Korean Air flight 007. At that time the conspiracy theory was that the US and South Korean governments got the pilot to invade Soviet air space while the Space Shuttle was in the vicinity along with the electronic surveillance plane that crossed KAL007′s path in order to light up USSR air defenses and collect data.

    Whether it was true or not, the Reagan administration used it to vilify the USSR and push it's hawkish agenda.

    9/11 doesn't have to have been done by the government for Deep State entities to take advantage. Any preplanning of what to do afterward could also be explained by them knowing what was going to happen (ala Pearl Harbor) and letting it happen. There were plenty of intelligence reports in the commission proceedings that have indicated something was up but not acted upon. They didn't have an admiral they could blame like they did at Pearl so the whole system was blamed which made expanding the security apparatus so much easier.

    Brabantian, Website

    October 25, 2016 at 8:59 am GMT • 300 Words

    In the European press, Italy's President Francesco Cossiga exposed that the NYC towers destruction of 11 September 2001 was done by the USA & Israel's Mossad , and that all Europe's governments know this

    Too few people know, that the New York Times itself, a few weeks before the NYC towers fell, photographed 'Israeli art students' (!) working in-between the walls of the those towers, amidst stacks of boxes with certain markings which … identify the box contents as components of bomb detonators
    World Trade Center's Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli 'Art Student' Project

    Also, too few people know that Osama Bin Laden himself denied being involved in the 11 Sep. 2001 NYC towers destruction, & that the 'Osama Bin Laden' videos & tapes shown for several years afterwards, are clearly-proven fakes with actors

    The claimed discoverer of those 'bin Laden' videos & tapes – allegedly scouring the 'Jihadi YouTubes' for material no one else 'finds' – is Israeli-American Rita Katz of the laughable 'SITE' – 'Search for International Terrorist Entities'

    Dissident US military-intel veterans tell us:

    " The truth about [Osama] Bin Laden, that his last known communication was December 3rd, 2001, received by the CIA / NSA intercept facility in Doha, in which he accused American Neocons of staging 9-11.

    " This was less than two weeks before his death, as reported in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran and even by Fox News, until Rita Katz brought him back to life in the guise of a Mercedes repair shop owner of Somali parentage living in Haifa, Israel.

    " The new short, fat Bin Laden, who lost his ability to speak Oxford English, continued to drop audio tapes in the dumpster behind Katz's Brooklyn apartment for years, until his frozen corpse was dumped into the Indian Ocean. "

    - Gordon Duff, Veterans Today

    Hans Vogel, October 25, 2016 at 9:07 am GMT

    If I recall correctly, it was Thierry Meyssan who in 2002 in his book La terrible imposture first suggested that 9/11 was a coup. John Kerry's brother-in-law Sarkozy later forced Meyssan into exile, because he was becoming a nuisance to the US and their French puppets.

    AmericaFirstNow , October 25, 2016 at 11:59 am GMT
    @AmericaFirstNow 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    For actual 9/11 truth about how fire brought down Building 7 as well see the links at following URL:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/07/14/alan-sabrosky-911-interview-with-press-tv-host-susan-modaress/

    Rehmat, October 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Dr. Giraldi is missing the point. While Washington and Zionist-controlled mainstream media had blamed the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and lately Saudi Arabia – they never mentioned the 800-pound Gorilla – the Zionist regime.

    The most vilified person had been head of Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who pointed his finger to Israel Mossad two weeks after the 9/11 – even before media ridiculously blamed Osama Bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Afghanistan – a country which did not had a single tank, helicopter, fighter jet or even a commercial plane to defend itself from the so-called ONLY WORLD POWER.

    Hamid Gul's claim on September 26, 2001, is now supported by thousands of scientists, scholars, politicians, architects and even a Jewish member of the so-called 9/11 COMISSION, Philip Zelikow (Zionist Jew) admitted in 2004 that America invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein became an existential threat to the Zionist entity.

    In December 2001, US historian Michael Collins Piper claimed that the so-called "19 Arab hijackers" could have been Israeli agents.

    On September 10, 2016, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted an article, entitled, 9/11: 15 years of a transparent lie.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/17/gen-hamid-gul-the-muslim-soparno-dies/

    Fred Reed , October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT

    Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    Diogenes, October 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm GMT

    9/11 was an amazing sociological event for what it can tell us about human psychology. The vast majority of people uncritically swallowed the official explanation, a few critical observers cast suspicions on the official story, then a group of chronically suspicious people, known as conspiracy theorists, who believe the government cannot be trusted had a cause celebre, then a group of anti conspiracy theorists and pro-government reactionaries devoted their energies to discredit the 9/11 Truthers while the vast majority of people are as a result confused and paralyzed into indecision and apathy. I will take note of who in these comments are 9/11 naysayers and observe what they say about other controversial topics!

    Rurik , October 25, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.

    we now know that they set the Waco compound on fire, and that they were firing machine guns into the only exit once the flames had engulfed the building. Bodies were piled up at the site of the exit that the coroner ruled were homicide deaths from bullet wounds. Homicides that our government committed. Most American yawn at such news. 'Those people (including the children) were 'whackos'.

    Recently our government has murdered or maimed or displaced millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East, and destroyed several countries, all based on by now well-established lies. Most Americans yawn at such knowledge. Those people 'hate our freedom'.

    Our government is also running a permanent torture camp. A 'Ministry of Love', or Minluv, in Orwell's Newspeak parlance.

    The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    the "something" that these neocon Zionists demanded from their "new Pearl Harbor like event" was for America to set about destroying all Muslim nations considered inconvenient to Israel. Without the 'event', Americans just were not willing to sacrifice their children to the Zionist cause.

    One of the central figures demanding that America act in Israel's interest was a one Phillip D. Zelikow. A neocon insider extraordinaire.

    This from his Wiki page:

    In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter , and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [24]

    Yes, that Ashton Carter, our current Secretary of Defense. And John Deutch was the director of the CIA at one time. (perhaps Mr. Giraldi knows of him)

    This Jewish neocon war mongering Zionist who called for a Peal Harbor like event to catalyze Americans to go to war for Israel, ended up being the executive director of the 911 Commission. The same 911 Commission that is universally recognized as a fraud and a cover up. Even by some of the men who were on it.

    I'm going to stop here. My head simply swims from the sheer evil of these people.

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    @Fred Reed

    A simpler 9/11 questionnaire for Fred;

    "Did right wing elements in Israel close to Likud, and US Neocons close to the Bush administration engineer the attacks to enable the Iraq war?" Yes____ No____ Don't know____

    Essay question: Are there any similarities between these events and other False Flag attacks aimed at Great Britain and the US such as 1) The King David Hotel bombing 2) Operation Susannah – Lavon Affair 3) USS Liberty?

    Jon Gold , October 25, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Loose Change? C'mon Phil…

    9/11: Press For Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHPfXemf10

    In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBblyIPxZFE

    9/11 Family Members, Jersey Girls, and member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg released a report showing how poorly the 9/11 Commission answered their questions:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/fsc_review.pdf

    The September Eleventh Advocates (Jersey Girls) have released a multitude of press releases over the years bringing attention to and calling into question certain aspects of 9/11:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/911advocates.pdf

    Here are the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's list of unanswered questions. The final statement from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee states "the report did not answer all of our questions…":

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

    Here is essential testimony from different 9/11 Family Members during the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html

    Here are all of the different statements released by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during the time of the 9/11 Commission. They show extremely well the corruption and compromise within the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/news.html

    My EXTREMELY extensive show "We Were Lied To About 9/11."

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/we-were-lied-to-about-9-11/id955030348?mt=2

    Rurik October 25, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT • 1,000 Words
    @Fred Reed Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___


    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___


    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___


    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___


    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___


    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__


    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together


    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.


    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    no, Israel was also responsible

    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    No, elements in the US gov and controlled media were also responsible

    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se, but elements in those governments. Like "the orders still stand" Dick Cheney, but certainly not all the assorted minions of the US or Israeli governments.

    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se. If you restrict the question to this broadly defined blanket condemnation, then the answer would be 'yes'.

    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___

    there's zero reason for thinking so

    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___

    at the highest levels, yes, but there again, that certainly doesn't mean every single employee

    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___

    there's no evidence of it. And if it had, they'd show us one of the scores (hundreds?) of videos

    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___

    the reason the flights were wildly diverted was probably to land the planes, liquidate the passengers and crew, and then send up specially outfitted jets for the purpose of crashing into the towers. (as the pretext for them to collapse, as the pretext to start the Eternal Wars for Israel and to turn us all into Palestinians)

    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___

    it looks like it

    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know. And again, it wouldn't be "the military", as in some monolithic entity that is fully aware of everything that "it' does. There are fringe sub-sets of the military that are often engaged in illegal and covert ops.

    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    what data?!

    From what I understand, we have not been made privy to any of the information on any of the flight data recorders. If you're aware of any data from the flight data recorders then you should give us a link!

    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___

    yes

    it's *obvious* that building seven was thus demolished, and so it follows that the other two were also.

    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___

    two of them, yes. The third was not hit by a plane, it simply plopped down in nicely cut pieces ready for shipment to China.

    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__

    In all likelihood, remote control. Check out the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time and his sundry organizations. Nice little rabbit hole of its own.

    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together

    horror

    they needed to horrify and anger the American people to rally us to war on Israel's neighbors. (+ there was the added benefit to lucky Larry of a few billion shekels and an opportunity to get rid of a couple of financial boondoggles. Such a deal!)

    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.

    this is silly

    we don't need to know the exact caliber of bullet that hit JFK to know that the government and Warren commission was lying. And they likely used military type crap that we're not even privy to. Come on Fred.

    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    elements, sure

    like the people that went around and collected all the videos that might have showed what hit the Pentagon. Certainly the people at the top were and are privy to the crime and cover up. Just like with JFK.

    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Yes, of course he was

    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___

    not your local channel seven, but the media as it's controlled from the top, and lie about EVERTYING. Yes Fred, that media was complicit. And still are. And are the ones that are going to hand the reins of this nations to Hillary Clinton. That media, you betcha.

    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    of course not. There again you're being silly Fred.

    what America should do is the same thing is should (and still needs to) do as regards the other cowardly and treacherous false flag that *elements* in the Israeli government and security forces were responsible for- the attack on the USS Liberty. We should have a real investigation that ferrets out these uber-criminals and brings them to justice.

    911 was a coup to turn the US into Israel's rabid dog in the Levant. And create a police state for any Americans that object, even with our very own torture camp. Isn't that something?

    You should write about it someday Fred. I can't think of a person more suited to mock the American idea of the free and the brave running a torture camp for goat herders and Afghans who don't want America making them free too.

    as for 911, all you have to know is that building seven was an obvious controlled demolition. From there it doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush was in on it or what type of materials specifically were used to bring the buildings down. That shit is all academic. We know they lied, and are lying. Only a deluded fool or moral coward (or worse) would pretend to themselves otherwise once he's seen the irrefutable evidence that they're lying.

    TheJester October 25, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    There are multiple ways to engineer a "False Flag" attack:

    1. You do it yourself, flying someone else's "flag" and hope no one notices. (Very primitive … rarely works unless you are a wooden frigate at sea attacking enemy maritime commerce.)

    2. You hire someone else to do it and hope none of them get caught. (Moderately primitive … but it worked for awhile in the Kennedy assassination.)

    3. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, take control, and redirect it to the attack. (Very difficult to do … but this was done in the NATO-sponsored Gladio terrorist attacks in Europe in the 1960s as well as the Black Hand attacks that precipitated WWI.)

    4. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, discover what they have planned, and QUIETLY remove all of YOUR obstacles that would otherwise have prevented the attack. (This is the best if you can pull it off since you leave no fingerprints. You might, as in 911, be accused of incompetent but, okay, you missed that one, so what!)

    BTW: #4 doesn't mean you don't help the terrorists with a little demolition work to make sure the spectacle unfolds as planned. You really need grand firework displays in these things to get them the attention they deserve.

    Si1ver1ock, October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT

    For those just coming into the 911 Truth movement, you should probably look at the hard evidence first to see if it merits further consideration. After that, you can go to he circumstantial evidence.

    Start with the physics and engineering:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg

    The question isn't whether this theory or that theory is absolutely correct. The question is whether there is sufficient cause for a new investigation. I never hear a good argument from the anti-Truth crowd as to why we shouldn't have another investigation.

    We want a new investigation. They don't want one. Why?

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm GMT

    A key to instant identification of the faith-based C-theorist is the loud claim that "steel-framed buildings" don't collapse as a result of fire. Fact is, yes they do - known, verified, fully-explained using real, verifiable data.

    Here's a list of steel framed high rises and other high rises that experienced major fires:

    – One New York Plaza, New York. 50 stories steel. Dropped beams on 33rd & 34th floors.
    – Alexis Nihon Plaza, Montreal. 15 stories steel. Partial collapse on 11th floor.
    – Windsor Tower, Madrid. 29 stories steel/concrete. Partial collapse.
    – One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia. 38 stories. No collapse.
    – Broadgate Phase 8, London. 14 stories. No collapse.
    – First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles. 62 stories. No collapse.
    – MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas. 26 stories. No collapse.
    – Joelma Building, Sao Paulo. 25 stories. No collapse.
    – Andraus Building, Sao Paulo. 31 stories. No collapse.

    These fires were much longer lasting and more intense than the WTC fires and none of these buildings experienced a complete collapse.
    Can you give a list of modern steel frame 20 storey+ buildings similar to WTC 1, 2 & 7 that have experienced a complete collapse due to fire – known and verified.

    Miro23 , October 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm GMT • 300 Words

    I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    It might have been worth checking out Israel a bit more closely. They have been running False Flag operations against the British and the US for years, aimed at engaging them in war against Arab states. For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centres in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or on June 8th 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the 6 Day War.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the more recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that carries a lot of kudos with old ex-terrorist Likudniks. In any event, Israelis were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website October 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm GMT •
    @War for Blair Mountain
    add in the fact that the steel support beams only had to be softened not melted to cause catastrophic structural failure.
    You are absolutely correct about that. If the beams had melted, or even softened, then the building would have collapsed. But not straight down at near free-fall speed into its own footprint, while crushing all the concrete to dust.

    If the columns had melted, or merely softened, they would not have melted or softened uniformly across the the building, so the result would have been an asymetric collapse resulting in the top of the building toppling over and crashing onto the roof of adjacent buildings. The portion of the building beneath the fire zone would have been left standing.

    But, as we know, nothing like that happened.

    CanSpeccy , October 26, 2016 at 2:07 am GMT • 400 Words @Oldeguy
    Pretty much my response. Something, I know not what, is amiss with Our Favorite Expatriate.
    Not being sure of what really happened in an event this pivotal is a reason to proceed with further discussion and investigation- not to shut it down.
    The most successful, by far, commando operation in history performed flawlessly by a bunch of guys with boxcutters directed by cell phone by a fugitive hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan ?
    On the the face of it, that matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    On the the face of it, that [the theory about 19 guys with box-cutters under the direction of fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan] matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    And even the members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted they don't really believe it.

    Thus:

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements , yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations .

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history .

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

    Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal" ; "This investigation is now compromised" ; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up" .

    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that " We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest ".

    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

    [Nov 03, 2016] MSM beat drums to reward Clintons hawkishness insinuating that Trump foreign policy is uncertain

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
    "... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
    "... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
    "... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
    "... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
    "... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
    "... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
    "... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
    "... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
    "... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
    "... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
    "... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
    "... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
    "... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
    "... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
    "... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
    "... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
    "... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
    "... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
    "... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
    "... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.

    Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as do I). In a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these points. Some excerpts (taken from this partial transcript part 9, 10):

    Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before.

    Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would have been in much better shape.

    We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
    ...
    Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.

    Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World War III.

    Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III.

    The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.

    Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical. He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan had to take back in the end when he introduced the biggest tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.

    Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than she openly claims.

    Clinton assures us that Trump is Putin's puppet who will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?

    With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed.

    ... ... ..

    The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to account for her " We came, we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed) pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?

    ... ... ...

    Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM | Permalink

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 3:37:10 PM | 2
    She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe".

    Dean | Nov 3, 2016 3:47:36 PM | 3
    IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats.
    ALberto | Nov 3, 2016 3:58:44 PM | 4
    Trump's Treasury Secretary?

    In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/trump-wants-former-goldman-partner-and-soros-employee-serve-treasury-secretary

    Charles | Nov 3, 2016 4:16:20 PM | 8
    On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.

    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    ben | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:36 PM | 9
    November 2, 2016
    Prof. Michael Hudson on Hillary Clinton and the US Elections

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17573

    worth a listen...

    the pair | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:51 PM | 10
    no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.

    how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.

    clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".

    george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect for themselves or the truth?

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:38:16 PM | 12
    What the hell is that?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43536
    they really get trolled by email?
    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 4:47:04 PM | 15
    @8, Charles
    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe" and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:49:35 PM | 16
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    "> Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya?
    >
    > Worth analyzing for future purposes."
    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:58:17 PM | 18
    I am surprised that when searching for leaks released today this one shows up, which we've seen before, isn't it?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    rg the lg | Nov 3, 2016 5:00:49 PM | 19
    The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.

    My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned mess.

    Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each step.

    In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.

    james | Nov 3, 2016 5:03:44 PM | 20
    thanks b..

    if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence, if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..

    and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:09:39 PM | 22
    If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

    In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".

    Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:50:41 PM | 29
    Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
    Jack Smith | Nov 3, 2016 6:09:25 PM | 33
    "...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed..

    b,

    Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead. But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.

    Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 7:03:01 PM | 38
    Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
    Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate effectively.

    Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging them.

    The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.

    Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view) but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be a step too far for rednecked rethugs.

    Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.

    In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.

    And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place - so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they will eventually get even worse.

    Good one assholes

    schlub | Nov 3, 2016 8:23:25 PM | 43
    Today's humor:

    US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/03/492016/US-Obama-Trump-support-Clinton-Florida

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 9:06:37 PM | 47
    @h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"

    Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last 12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder - whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.

    There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors.

    metamars | Nov 3, 2016 9:09:48 PM | 48
    @ EnglishOutsider, 34

    "Since they are significant differences then any voting action becomes significant."

    Exactly (provided you mean "more significant in the short term".)

    I have corresponded with Bueno de Mesquita, a gifted political game theorist, on lesser evilism. See "THE JESUS CHRIST OF POLITICAL GAME THEORY ON THE STUPIDITY OF LESSER EVILIST VOTING" @ https://shadowproof.com/2011/06/18/the-jesus-christ-of-political-game-theory-on-the-stupidity-of-lesser-evilist-voting/

    Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.

    When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat. Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying, then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You must be kidding" category, in my eyes.

    I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.

    It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed, overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity he blew, nor how to recover.


    Pretty damn dumb, if you ask me.

    Unmolested ISIS oil caravan data was presented by the Russians; I listed references in my reddit post at r/the_Donald, "Trump Better Wake Up - New Report Indicates Why Trump's Failure To Correctly Attribute Blame for ISIS' Early Success Could Cost Him, Dearly" @ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a5qns/trump_better_wake_up_new_report_indicates_why/

    jfl | Nov 3, 2016 9:37:08 PM | 55
    @46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned such nonsense.'

    An Economic Interpretation of The Constitution of The United States by Charles A. Beard

    'If your outburst is representative of America's younger generation, then my God man, we're sorely screwed.'

    Copyright 1913 and 1935 by the Macmillan Company,
    Copyright renewed 1941 by Charles A. Beard.
    This Digital edition created 25th July, 2006

    jason | Nov 3, 2016 9:42:44 PM | 57
    I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His "round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc. There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.

    on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean? they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.

    good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.

    wilk | Nov 3, 2016 9:53:53 PM | 59
    Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.

    I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it.

    Take Me | Nov 3, 2016 10:00:56 PM | 61
    Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fiver

    Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

    "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

    [Nov 02, 2016] The the Guardian a well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ

    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:49 pm 79

    SusanC @60:

    "it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the case for going to war in Iraq".

    The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for going to war in Iraq?
    I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to a degree I would not have previously thought possible.

    Stephen 11.01.16 at 9:55 pm

    Nastywoman@68: I would recommend a long article from that well-known crypto-Tory propaganda organ , the Guardian, which sets out your case far more eloquently than I could. The title is not the author's responsibility, and is somewhat misleading.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/01/the-ruthlessly-effective-rebranding-of-europes-new-far-right ?

    [Nov 02, 2016] Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Notable quotes:
    "... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
    "... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
    "... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country.

    But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to Donald J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy wisdom by watching television shows.

    Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.

    After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.

    Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.

    "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."

    In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's promises to fire officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.

    "He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."

    [Nov 01, 2016] Inside the Invisible Government - The Unz Review

    Nov 01, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

    The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

    As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

    From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

    Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."

    The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

    [Oct 31, 2016] Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying how can we tie this to Iraq .

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jdmckay | Oct 30, 2016 9:43:00 PM | 99

    Tobin Paz @ 90
    The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.

    Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make strong case".

    My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to declarations Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".

    Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about it for years.

    None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch, they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior have his way.

    Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the 24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe" bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.

    Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these ulterior motives.

    One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc. and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".

    I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.

    So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical, insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables... whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields was big part of their calculus to "liberate".

    So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

    Amazingly insightful review !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
    "... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
    "... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
    "... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
    "... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
    "... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
    "... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
    "... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
    "... Red Storm Rising ..."
    "... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
    "... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
    "... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
    "... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
    "... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
    "... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
    Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

    The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
    Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

    A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

    at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

    The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

    The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

    The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

    Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

    And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

    To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

    Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

    In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

    Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

    Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

    The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

    having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

    Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

    This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

    Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

    In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

    Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

    They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

    This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

    Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

    In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

    As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

    On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

    Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

    Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

    Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

    In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

    Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


    Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
    pages 11-12 | 3337 words

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · The Push for War The Threat from America

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven · A Trap of Their Own Making The consequences of the new imperialism · LRB 8 May 2003

    [Oct 28, 2016] If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give [Oct 28, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
    "... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
    "... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
    "... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre

    KILLING MACHINES AND THE MADNESS OF MILITARISM
    http://www.artsandopinion.com/2014_v13_n5/giroux-6.htm
    by Henry Giroux

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.

    It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.

    If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.

    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.

    First, she'll drone Mercy Street(s)…

    Elizabeth October 26, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars.

    Kim Kaufman October 26, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    "Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy Editor's Roundtable].

    "…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."

    This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch. Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.

    Jim Haygood October 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Soothing voices, no anger, a lot of laughter … right up till the pitchfork tines pierce their windpipe.

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    there is absolutely nothing 'soothing' about N..P..R !!

    'Irritating' or 'grating' yes ….

    ….In fact, whenever I come across NPR banter on my local radio station … I immediately switch to the local BC 'French' station.

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR).

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    well … yeah … as per the federal gov. 30-years war on the commons …. courtesy of feckess f#cksticks in the Uniparty !!

    [Oct 28, 2016] Russias Putin says Obama administration does not stick to any deals Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
    "... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
    "... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
    "... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
    "... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

    She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

    RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

    This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

    Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

    They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

    The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

    Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

    Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

    Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

    Regular Guy an hour ago
    Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

    They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

    DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
    Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

    [Oct 28, 2016] An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a do-or-die mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Dennis Kucinichs Extraordinary Warning On Washingtons Think Tank Warmongers

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
    "... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
    "... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
    "... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    – From Major General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket

    Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them.

    The piece was published at The Nation and is titled: Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War? Look at Their Donors .

    Read it and share it with everyone you know.

    Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

    As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket.

    How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.

    According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO.

    Indeed, I warned about this in last week's piece: U.S. Foreign Policy 'Elite' Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton .

    The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and Libya experience.

    The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is spoiling for more war.

    The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished." CAP, according to a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.

    The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign governments , notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a Brookings senior fellow . Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute , which has received funding from Saudi Arabia , the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria. Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy.

    As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom, where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.

    And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?

    Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it," predictably says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.

    The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.

    The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'ętre for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination.

    It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).

    The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.

    As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly more dangerous place.

    The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.

    Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report's authors.

    It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.

    It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White House, must face visible opposition.

    Thank you Mr. Kucinich, I couldn't agree more.

    RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:33 PM ,

    we should have elected him in 2008. missed opportunity.
    LetThemEatRand -> RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:41 PM ,
    Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
    nmewn Oct 27, 2016 7:37 PM ,
    So I guess the War on Poverty is over...so who won? ;-)
    Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 7:43 PM ,
    Off Topic: Oregon Standoff -- Not Guilty of Conspiracy

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/judge_welcomes_new_jur...

    The comment section is filled with weeping bolsheviks, apparently.

    [Oct 26, 2016] It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized

    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm 32

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Next Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
    "... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
    "... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
    May 22, 2015 | Antiwar.com
    The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski.

    The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.

    After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and 14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which reportedly received vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the attacks.

    Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM) – formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity) enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers: SDSM leader Zoran Zaev declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will stay until Gruevski quits."

    Sound familiar?

    Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."

    During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force, but actually an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time, here and here.

    Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster of Macedonia, handing them a $25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo war – is now getting his revenge.

    Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the latter playing a key role in releasing recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible scenario, given what happened in neighboring Ukraine.

    Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this space, is still being held, his "trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned. Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.

    Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretz reports, a group of 40 historians from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:

    "Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and, in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."

    Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the truth.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The Clinton Foundation contributed to the February coup in Ukraine, having longstanding ties to Ukrainian oligarchs who pushed the country to European integration.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
    "... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
    "... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
    May 17, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February 2014, experts point out.

    It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian.

    Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between 1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost $10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.

    It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.

    Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return. In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably, several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.

    Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends" to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail term.

    Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.

    No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.

    Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.

    So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil. In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its devastating consequences.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150323/1019905665.html#ixzz3YT3FykcI

    See also: US Intelligence Services Behind 2014 Ukraine Coup – EU Parliament Member

    [Oct 25, 2016] 11 Truth? Was it an American coup?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. ..."
    "... A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible. ..."
    "... Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state. ..."
    "... The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. ..."
    "... The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration. ..."
    "... The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality. ..."
    "... the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios. ..."
    "... I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.unz.com
    11 Truth? Was it an "American coup?" Leave a Comment For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Mergers Raise Prices, Not Efficiency

    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : October 25, 2016 at 04:56 AM RE: Mergers Raise Prices, Not Efficiency

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-24/mergers-raise-prices-not-efficiency

    [IMO, Noah muddles the message, but it is a important topic that gets muddled by everyone else too. Economists with a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century.

    Efficiency itself is an amorphous term. Mergers can be an efficient use of capital since they deliver lower competition and higher profits. JP Morgan did not want to be in a industry that he could not dominate. Efficiency is different for a fish than a capital owner. Mergers are good for regulatory capture and ineffishient for fish. Mergers are inefficient for workers that want higher wages or the unemployed that want jobs. Market power and regulatory capture can be efficient vehicles for taking advantage of trade agreements to offshore production and increase returns to capital all while lowering both prices and quality as well as reducing domestic wages. Efficiency is in the eyeballs of the beholder especially if they make good soup.] Reply Tuesday, reason -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 06:58 AM

    But Keynes was saying something quite different - he wasn't actually talking about policy but about economics (the task of economists). He was saying that understanding short term fluctuations was as important as predicting the long term. Still relevant in this age of irrelevant general equilibrium models.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason ... , October 25, 2016 at 09:56 AM
    Sorry, I thought that the whole purpose of the study of macroeconomics was to guide policy decisions. I stand corrected.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:02 AM
    I always looked at Keynes as a fellow traveler, one who wrote obtusely at times for the express purpose of couching his meaning in sweetened platitudes that at a second glance were drenched in cynicism and sarcasm, at least when it came to his opinions of economists and politicians and the capital owning class that they both served.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    OK, "obtusely" was a poor choice of words, at least with regards to Keynes. Keynes realized WWI was a big mistake, the Treaty at Versailles was an abomination with regards to German restitution, and he was accused of anti-Semitism just for being honest about Jewish elites in the Weimar Republic. It was not that Keynes was insensitive, unpatriotic, or anti-Semitic, but that Keynes was just correct on all counts.
    JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
    This is a good example of economists working in lock step with investors: "Economists with a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century."

    I think it has been questioned for decades whether increased efficiency in banking actually materialized in the wake of industry consolidation. Local market oligopolies may well have generated higher profits and the appearance of more efficiency. And concentration certainly facilitated collusion as we have seen in many markets, including LIBOR.

    What concentration indisputably caused was a dramatic increase in the political power of the Wall Street banking cartel, which owns not only the Federal Reserve but also a lot of powerful politicians...a subject on which 'liberal' economists are generally agnostic, since politics is outside their silo.

    point -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , October 25, 2016 at 10:26 AM
    The article ignored the effect of mergers on supplier relationships, often one of near monopsony (oligopsony?). DOJ seems to be focused on unit pricing to consumers(though perhaps not with cable) to the point that most managements understand that they have free rein to squeeze suppliers. And so they merge to do so.

    It may be that more contribution to increasing margins is from purchase prices than selling prices.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> point... , October 25, 2016 at 10:41 AM
    Doubly so with global supply chaining.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Grand Strategy What is America's Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issue

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
    "... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
    "... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | The National Interest Blog

    There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.

    John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble." First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."

    Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."

    The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible."

    So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert U.S. military might into political ends?

    Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure."

    Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."

    Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."

    Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional questions.

    [Oct 25, 2016] karl1haushofer

    Oct 25, 2016 | gravatar.com
    says:

    September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying the West any role in it. Reply
          • marknesop says: September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling. Reply
            • Moscow Exile says: September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline news.

              The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK), the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!" screamed out from the British gutter press.

              And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George, whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Hillary might be a symptom of degenerate neoliberal aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Gen. Butler book War Is A Racket is still a classic book on the subject

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> to pgl ... October 23, 2016 at 04:10 AM

    Ruling elite has a crook for a candidate appealing to fears and prefers her wars for oil to be with Russia.

    DrDick -> ilsm ... October 23, 2016 at 08:54 AM , 2016 at 08:54 AM

    More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
    ilsm -> DrDick... , October 23, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    Greed is a unifier. What they said on SNL opening skit...... Klinton is the republican.
    anne : , October 23, 2016 at 05:23 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/790154851682545665

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Exploiting Cold War rhetoric & tactics has helped her win the election. I guess the idea is: deal with the aftermath and fallout later.

    Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation

    How does new Cold War-- which ends space for dissent, hurts women & children, may lead to nuclear war--help what Clinton claims she is for?

    4:36 AM - 23 Oct 2016

    EMichael -> anne... , October 23, 2016 at 05:28 AM
    I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald keeps falling and cannot get up.
    ilsm -> EMichael...
    Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.

    Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.

    Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.

    likbez -> ilsm...
    Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler, "War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.

    See an interesting discussion at

    http://crookedtimber.org/2016/10/22/unnecessary-wars/#comments

    Here are a couple of comments
    == quote ===

    greg 10.22.16 at 11:02 pm ( 29 )

    All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.

    The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist, we might go to war with Russia or China.

    The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people, the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.

    America: Consuming your future today.

    ====

    Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am

    faustusnotes

    fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance. It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.

    1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations, but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost. Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.

    Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.

    ===

    Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )

    The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.

    There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political future).

    And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.

    The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty . In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.

    [Oct 24, 2016] New generation forget about the horrors of previous wars and internationalist idea does not survive the new war first hours, let alone first weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
    "... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
    "... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
    "... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
    "... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
    "... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
    "... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
    "... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
    "... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
    "... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
    "... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
    "... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:46 pm ( 25 )

    The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .

    Was it? I wonder about that.

    Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership across Europe failed.

    It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.

    It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.

    And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks.

    Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.


    bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26

    Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.

    Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.

    Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.

    I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?

    The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial power.

    It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.

    The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911, Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).

    It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.

    If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.

    It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course, no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.

    The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)

    What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.

    The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey, Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism, or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?

    The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?

    [Oct 24, 2016] the Dutch investigators were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 7:53 am
    John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared on YouTube a day before the crash?)

    "Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly before; much of it already discredited as fakes."

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16440#more-16440

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 8:03 am
    The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national greatness.
    cartman , September 28, 2016 at 9:38 am
    The report is also based off of "social media"

    Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:45 am
    The west is doubling down, but it will only harden Russian resolve. Things just escalated a few more notches.
    Pavlo Svolochenko , September 28, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    The lazy swamp monkeys should mail it back to two years ago when anyone remembered or cared about MH 17.
    Jeremn , September 28, 2016 at 6:48 am
    Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.

    This is proof of a fake. Good God.

    et Al , September 28, 2016 at 9:24 am
    It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry said the US had but no-one has heard of since.

    On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi – or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.

    marknesop , September 28, 2016 at 9:36 am
    Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried, and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] the newly-released raw radar data from Russia marknesop ,

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    September 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm
    Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins, his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk radar would surely have seen that.
    Chinese American , September 27, 2016 at 1:48 pm
    But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine, since it can be used to prove something?

    Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly, Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed

    Oct 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , September 26, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:

    16:05
    Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry

    16:02
    Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces

    15:52
    Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash

    15:48
    Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash

    15:46
    Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense Ministry

    15:39
    Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from Snizhne side

    15:28
    INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:25
    RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    15:24
    UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING 777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY

    marknesop , September 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm
    Recently unearthed raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July 2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course, if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see. Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.

    Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity, the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.

    Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can. But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence – or any evidence at all – from Kiev.

    Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower, though. Reply

    [Oct 24, 2016] Strobe Talbott ia a closet neocon and it was he who brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State Department in 1993.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:22 PM

    Anne and I have seen this for a while.

    Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.

    Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia...........

    The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.

    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.

    This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.

    Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.

    Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".

    Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).

    Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get out of the hole.

    Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country. Much like Kosovo is.

    Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-perpetual-war-perpetual-peace-17614

    "If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"

    "In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."

    [Oct 24, 2016] Some very interesting new aspects on the crash of flight MH17. Looks like the investigators forgot a possibility of a missle armed drone from nearby NATO maneuvers or from SBU

    That would be a pretty devious plot indeed...
    Notable quotes:
    "... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
    "... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
    "... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
    "... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | mh17scenario5.wordpress.com

    In August 2015, a Russian study suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may have been used. This seems unlikely.

    However, a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ).

    Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?

    Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17.

    Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):

    Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?

    The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is that two pieces of butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:

    fragments-found-mh17
    Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).

    These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead of type 9N314M1 :

    bukshrapnel-11
    Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.

    There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above). However, even the official investigation acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard 9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped warhead fragments (see image above).

    There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris: they may simply have been planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard BUK missile.

    This explanation is in line with several other facts:

    1. No butterfly-shaped holes were found on the cockpit or fuselage of MH17
    2. The corpses of the cockpit crew, in which one of the butterfly-shaped fragments was "found", got a "special treatment" at a Ukranian mortuary prior to their delivery to the Netherlands
    3. The tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored by the official investigation.
    4. There is already strong indication that a third butterfly-shaped fragment was indeed planted in the wreckage after the crash.
    More faulty logic

    The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:

    1. They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
    2. Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles. Wrong!
    3. They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
    4. Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
    5. Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17) would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).

    ... ... ...

    If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather easy part of it.

    Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?

    It is perhaps noteworthy that MH17 was downed in the airspace of Ukrainian Oblast (region) Dnipropetrovsk . In July 2014, this Oblast was controlled by Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Igor Kolomoyskyi , who had been governor of Dnipropetrovsk since March of that year. Now:

    Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation never looked into it.

    Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?

    If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone, they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.

    Recall that after the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia (without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present any proof for another scenario.

    Final note

    Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.

    1. A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military of the United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".

      According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."

      The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."

    2. A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli IAI Harop and Hero-30 . Usually, such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed, about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed, timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
    3. If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario: since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit), they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
    4. A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists. (There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size to the BUK.

    [Oct 23, 2016] In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that hes been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Terry | Oct 22, 2016 11:28:30 AM | 1
    Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia.

    Before inciting war with Russia, Schoen worked for Bill Clinton and brokered meeting (for $40,000 a month) between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire oligarchs." http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/09/09/fox-news-analyst-and-clinton-operative-douglas-e-schoen-accepted-millions-of-dollars-to-agitate-for-war-with-russia/

    rg the lg | Oct 22, 2016 11:29:52 AM | 2
    Personally I don't know if I 'trust' RT any more than I 'trust' American media ... but I do pay attention to both.

    Here's an article to get the ball rolling: what is propaganda? Who is guilty of propagandizing news?

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/363737-rt-uk-msm-hysteria-russia/

    Of course, I truly think that Telesur is about as balanced as we can get.

    [Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
    "... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
    "... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

    She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

    "What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

    Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

    Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

    And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

    You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

    beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

    I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

    Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

    likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    Beverly,

    === quote ===
    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
    === end of quote ===

    This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

    And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

    The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

    I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

    But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

    That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

    It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

    In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

    Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

    Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

    Good grace.

    Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

    Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

    Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

    And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

    One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

    As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

    Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

    likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

    You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

    All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

    Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

    Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

    Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

    This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

    We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

    Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

    That means vote against Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
    "... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

    Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

    When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

    [Oct 22, 2016] Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war

    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Northern Star ,

    October 20, 2016 at 11:44 am
    Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
    "The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:55 pm
    But we have always been at war with Eastasia.
    Or was that Oceania?
    I forget marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
    "... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
    "... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn , October 20, 2016 at 8:16 am

    Oh, this is good. And the comments.

    "Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.

    Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/stop-this-stupid-sabre-rattling-against-russia/

    marknesop , October 20, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    Still full of shite, of course – Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.

    This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian enthusiasm for a European future.

    In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent.

    yalensis , October 20, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC?

    Ha ha – This is a good writing!

    [Oct 22, 2016] The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg, resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.

    Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.

    Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly zone, she dodged.

    Not surprising, as it's the Libya playbook.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Trump We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
    "... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
    "... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
    "... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
    "... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
    "... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
    "... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
    "... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
    "... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
    "... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
    "... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
    "... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
    "... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
    "... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
    "... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
    "... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
    "... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
    "... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
    "... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com

    I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.

    For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.

    Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.

    Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .

    And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:

    Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.

    In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.

    The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.

    The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.

    It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.

    The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.

    The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.

    That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.

    White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.

    If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.

    The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.

    However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.

    The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.

    The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."

    The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.

    My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.

    Ah, politics.

    To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.

    So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".

    In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.

    Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.

    Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.

    As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.

    The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.

    That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.

    By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.

    Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.

    In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.

    Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.

    Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.

    But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.

    (Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)

    [Oct 22, 2016] I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Procopius October 22, 2016 at 10:06 am

    I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought. It reminds me of Vietnam.

    The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while the Village all started to believe it.

    None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer (if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.

    [Oct 21, 2016] The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012 - World Socialist Web Site by David North

    Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought by the USA for cash.
    Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like it is not the final ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia Since 1980 ..."
    "... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
    "... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
    "... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
    "... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
    "... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
    "... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
    "... The Fourth International ..."
    "... The End of the USSR, ..."
    "... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
    "... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
    Jan 30, 2012 | www.wsws.org

    ... ... ...

    This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:

    History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]

    Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]

    Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism into the pillage of the nation's assets.

    The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.

    In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]

    The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into the economic structures of world capitalism.

    For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.

    On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits to the people. I stated:

    In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume 19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]

    Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers' state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States] or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]

    The report continued:

    "A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p. 6]

    I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:

    We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.

    Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.

    Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...

    Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]

    The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense.

    In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]

    Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.

    Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25]

    The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction

    According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course, nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.

    Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.

    The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another, to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.

    But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.

    The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.

    As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage, the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.

    What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."

    What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden of their losses to the public.

    It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the 1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations. It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in 2008, from which there has been no recovery.

    When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state system.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 40

    debate is over!
    Back to the real world.
    Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
    OCT 20
    Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

    The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

    They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

    [Oct 21, 2016] The Bellingcat research collective War propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism"

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
    "... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
    "... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
    "... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
    "... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
    "... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
    "... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
    "... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
    "... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
    "... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
    www.wsws.org
    In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned to the Russian Federation territory."

    The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."

    The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.

    This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.

    The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins. Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.

    The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence."

    Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria.

    From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.

    Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.

    In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying" social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had been fired by the Syrian army.

    Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to provide the pretext.

    Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel" groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."

    Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation, it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."

    By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.

    How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest."

    In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]

    The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.

    MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation, the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."

    In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17 crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or draw conclusions as to who controlled it.

    By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der Spiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of "error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."

    Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."

    In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.

    Red_Mariner
    I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
    thucydide
    Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.

    A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.

    Bob Beal
    Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.

    [Oct 21, 2016] A Desperate Obama Administration Resorts To Lying And Maybe More by Moon of Alabama

    Oct 08, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed. It documented this in a tweet with a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.

    It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials. But usually they shy away from outright lies.

    Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said (vid @1:00) about Syria:

    Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.
    No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria.

    The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

    This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of the UN Security Council.

    Early reports, like this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:

    Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
    But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations, does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record", Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.

    The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments daily press briefing yesterday had a whole section on it. Video (@3:30) shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:

    QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --

    QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
    ...
    QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?

    MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.

    QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --

    MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
    ...

    This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."

    It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.

    Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way to significantly influence that.

    Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, made other accusations against Russia:

    The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
    Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity") that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."

    The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it a blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see why these accusations are made now. Murray:

    That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is, on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
    The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in Russia's than the Washington's favor.

    Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could they order up something really stupid?

    [Oct 20, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
    "... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
    "... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

    Notable quotes:
    "... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
    "... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
    "... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
    "... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
    "... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
    "... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
    "... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
    "... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
    "... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
    "... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
    "... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    "... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
    "... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
    "... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

    The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

    As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

    At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

    The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

    Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

    People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

    Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

    In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

    Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

    In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

    Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

    In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

    Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

    You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

    Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

    Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

    Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

    This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

    When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

    As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

    At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

    Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

    Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

    All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

    Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

    Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

    Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

    There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

    Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

    Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

    In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

    Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

    All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

    For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

    [Oct 20, 2016] I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, were just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hemeantwell October 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen.

    Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/uss-mason-fired-on-again/

    Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.

    frosty zoom October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    that's quite a bold statement.

    Harry October 20, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, we're just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Plenue October 20, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the start.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    The Russian FM, Lavrov put it best when he described the U.S. as only desiring vassals.

    [Oct 20, 2016] This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    psychohistorian | Oct 19, 2016 8:29:29 PM | 99

    I just read this posting at ZH and believe that this information when fully grokked will take the market down.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/never-seen-secret-memo-aig-bailout-feds-tarullo-obama-revealed-podesta-emails

    This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis. I want to see how they tell the world that this was all legal.

    END PRIVATE FINANCE! The folks that own private finance also own the US and many other governments.....with or without vote rigging as one of their tools.

    [Oct 18, 2016] Obama -- neoliberal and neocon shill

    Notable quotes:
    "... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
    "... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
    "... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
    "... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
    "... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
    "... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
    "... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
    "... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
    "... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
    "... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
    "... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
    "... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
    "... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
    "... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
    "... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
    "... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
    "... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Ron Waller -> DrDick... October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.

    Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.)

    Political Compass: The US Presidential Election 2012
    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 Reply Monday, October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 02:43 PM

    "Fact is ..."

    Oh, do go on.

    "... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.

    "He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending, like ARRA short term and ACA long term.

    "He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "

    Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.

    "His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)"

    The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan issuance.

    But sure, tell us more of about "facts."

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:17 PM
    From Bloomberg:

    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."

    From CNN Money:

    "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read.

    As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.

    (Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 08:59 PM
    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. "

    Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.

    And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.

    The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.

    Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least, in any sensible accounting.

    "From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP.
    ...
    And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as well be tiramisu.

    First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.

    Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's just the nature of automatic stabilizers.

    You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak as being somehow less than "centrist."

    Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets talk about what that category includes and doesn't.

    The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half defense cuts.

    Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades, as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary spending continues to go up.

    Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.

    So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than he's lowered them on everyone else.

    Not centrist? Pfft.

    "Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read."

    Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.

    "As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."

    No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate increases.

    You were saying?

    " If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."

    Ugh. Just painful.

    Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet, so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).

    But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage. It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option" means.

    Please, just stop.

    sanjait -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 09:02 PM
    Let me sum it up again:

    Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA, not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    "Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended."

    So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"

    The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical territory.

    "No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise"

    From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world."

    "Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"

    You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still have no healthcare insurance.

    I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've been a more effective patchwork reform.

    Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to my original point.

    "But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"

    From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."

    "Please, just stop."

    You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and pathetic attempts at browbeating.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:37 PM
    ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest.

    Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market'] assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".

    sanjait -> DrDick... , October 17, 2016 at 09:19 PM
    "Clinton will go left of ACA. "

    "I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.

    Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life, to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/09/hillary-clintons-commitment-universal-quality-affordable-health-care-for-everyone-in-america/
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

    I really wish more liberals would learn about these things...

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 08:06 AM
    " I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :

    "Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance, while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"

    The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.

    sanjait -> ilsm... , October 17, 2016 at 09:13 PM

    "ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."

    Yeah ... what?

    The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.

    "Shifting to banking......

    Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?

    When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"

    Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?

    During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.

    MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet, which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money to deliberately expand monetary supply.

    ilsm -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 03:29 PM
    The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.

    Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.

    The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 09:15 PM
    "The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable."

    Complete premise fail in the first sentence.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    You're incapable of comprehending the concepts of objectivity and immutability? Either you flunked out of high school, or you're an economist.
    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next."

    By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session.

    If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.)

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate?

    [Oct 18, 2016] The Clinton Goldman Speeches No Smoking Guns, but a Munitions Dump Instead

    Notable quotes:
    "... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
    "... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
    "... Policy Sciences ..."
    "... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
    "... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
    "... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
    "... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
    "... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
    "... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
    "... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
    "... in that context ..."
    "... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
    "... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
    "... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
    "... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
    "... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
    "... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
    "... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
    "... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
    "... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
    "... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
    "... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
    "... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
    "... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
    "... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As readers know, WikiLeaks has released transcripts of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out "noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)

    Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural, but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?

    WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.

    With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches

    The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street

    Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided to cut only a few paragraphs. From Clinton's second Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:

    MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.

    Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.

    That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].

    And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .

    And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later .

    I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.

    There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .

    And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

    So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.

    So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

    And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

    And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.

    And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.

    MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!].

    So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power that exists here.

    "Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability" the banks were worried about; accounting control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.

    "These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market.".

    But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".

    "My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

    And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.

    So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration, and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides plenty of leads).

    Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State

    The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from Clinton's third Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly normal in HillaryLand):

    SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities. So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back to getting the right balance.

    Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare? "All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally, which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization, way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making the "stool" metaphor vacuous.

    From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley). On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does have a finger in every pie).

    Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism

    From Clinton's second Goldman Speech :

    MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still - the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash of absolutes?

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].

    I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits, the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.

    As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.

    Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they needed.

    And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.

    Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.

    First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; but then Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government); Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer. Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer), Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work") on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).

    From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare death spiral.

    The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them

    Finally, this little passage from the first Clinton Goldman speech caught my eye:

    MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out, but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either in Syria or where we get to in Iran.

    MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different outcome.

    (I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad, as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem," which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated information technology and management theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169. I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:

    There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones, that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see, we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable. We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or "vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.

    And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" ( and a critique ):

    There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.

    Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:

    Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad

    There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false. They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.

    For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."

    (Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration, far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions. That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.

    From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion, and the nature of the decision taken.

    Conclusion

    I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office; if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.

    NOTES

    [1] Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g., here , here , here , here , here , and here ).

    [2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's methods to be unsound.

    oho October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Slow motion coup. Wish I was being histrionic.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Your notion is a lot like Simon Johnson's thoughts about the Quiet Coup from 2009:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

    ocop October 17, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    Oh my god.

    I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:

    Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time, genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders.

    Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.

    In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts. Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today, Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.

    Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.

    A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:

    Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally. When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately, aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs to do, and never really recovering.

    Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:


    It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated, and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.

    The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries, a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances. If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:34 am

    That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…

    There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country, and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.

    Synoia October 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    She told them what they wanted to hear. "No surprises."

    craazyboy October 17, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give them.

    Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.

    Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
    As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."

    Praedor October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.

    Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official. You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation

    you are forgetting, of course, that Corporations are people, too. And a corporation's voting is done with a corporation's wallet.

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?

    Portia October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    could this be related?

    Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System

    Why was the Federal Register System Established ?

    New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to regulate complex social and economic issues
    Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
    Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
    Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/tutorial/online-html.html

    Antoine October 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Third paragraph : WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia :)

    Lambert Strether Post author October 17, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Thanks, fixed!

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    tl;dr - Clinton has terrible judgement

    But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.

    This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    john October 17, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace.

    The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing* to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.

    When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or fear-monger the North Koreans.

    We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available. It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.

    On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment' turns on him.

    The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:37 am

    > This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.

    +100

    With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.

    optimader October 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street.

    this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted, so that's even worse.

    Her rap kinda reminds me of a banal form of the photojournalist in
    http://hartzog.org/j/apocalypsenowtranscript.html

    PHOTOJOURNALIST
    "Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
    It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
    supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
    into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
    are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
    going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
    dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
    either love somebody or you hate them."

    Andy October 17, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    NICE ref. Always like's me that redux.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:42 am

    "Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash

    ambrit October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    H Clinton's speaking 'style' reeks. Partial thoughts follow half baked pronouncements, all lacking clarity or coherence, you know?

    grayslady October 17, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate. I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.

    Arizona Slim October 17, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is the best that she can do?

    Really?

    Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches, and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh. Some people have more money than sense.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:23 am

    Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.

    Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it

    And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool is elected.

    fajensen October 18, 2016 at 12:33 am

    I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with it.

    Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.

    One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it.

    Code Name D October 17, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.

    The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary, and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together. As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills in the gaps with random gibberish.

    You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.

    So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.

    David Carl Grimes October 17, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least, I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:43 am

    No, she's not improvising in the debates. It's all scripted, all gamed out.

    Code Name D October 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however, dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    You know, you could have a point there! :-)

    Optimader October 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    "You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.

    The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is essence appropriating a claim to the listener.

    I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
    The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
    I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically even if it is a fleeting annoyance.

    Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.

    Rhondda October 17, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says "you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around." Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance" Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like some She Who Must Not Be Named.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:46 am

    That would be interesting. A list of all the "you knows" in context. Maybe I should do that.

    clarky90 October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know!

    sharonsj October 17, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.

    flora October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions?

    "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."

    I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.

    ekstase October 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart. Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade, may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader. So where are we going now?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:54 am

    A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."

    I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing, which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.

    So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not.

    allan October 17, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    "Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social Security and Medicare? "

    What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.

    Vatch October 17, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    There's a book with a great title that I haven't read, but maybe some Naked Capitalism readers have read: How the Post Office Created America: A History , by Winifred Gallagher.

    Anne October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality, but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations will be the right amount.

    In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc., why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything likely to tick them off?

    I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans, it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.

    After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.

    I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

    Will there even be a debate on Wednesday?

    Roger Smith October 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty, and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.

    The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner circle and others play along).

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 12:59 am

    Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!

    JohnnyGL October 17, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Re: your conclusion,

    I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.

    If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"

    She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.

    Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo" for many presidents.

    Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year. How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?

    philmc October 17, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches. Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.

    Jim Thomson October 17, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "

    But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.

    We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall Street's long-term health insurance plan.

    Thank you for slogging through all of this.

    Rory October 17, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    It seems to me that the message of these speeches is straightforward: "I'm bought and willing to stay bought for the right price."

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove it – head first.

    Foppe October 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").

    Gee October 17, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Care to know what they are buying? This :

    "So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers, but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."

    Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry, who are your best drinking buddies.

    The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the oh so deserving work that God told them to do.

    uncle tungsten October 18, 2016 at 12:35 am

    +1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than him.

    PapaBear October 17, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    "What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for?"

    Influence, plain and simple

    shinola October 17, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech…

    I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:00 am

    That was irony…

    phred October 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel.

    However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".

    I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck ; )

    Michael Fiorillo October 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.

    Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either.

    Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.

    Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action, and everyone's a potential rube.

    Big River Bandido October 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons. As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.

    pretzelattack October 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers."

    seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).

    jgordon October 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.

    hreik October 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about "someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Let's see what happens after November 8, which is not far away.

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.

    What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?

    In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed.

    No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."

    Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.

    The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.

    But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little…

    Edward October 17, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article

    http://www.williampolk.com/assets/the-cuban-missile-crisis-in-reverse.pdf

    that a war with Russia would escalate.

    Starveling October 17, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    If high finance is our nervous system, does the American body politic have a terminal case of Parkinsons?

    oho October 17, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    With some CJD/mad cow disease.

    Oregoncharles October 17, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    " "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."

    But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed. It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That would be the political system.

    So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.

    So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a truth – pretty typical propaganda.

    Yves Smith October 17, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.

    Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding is retained earnings.

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.

    Or both.

    aab October 18, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Both.

    DolleyMadison October 17, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Wash your mouth out! Hahaaa I love you Yves…

    timotheus October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.

    xformbykr October 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    has the commentariat seen these from paul craig roberts?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/15/is-hillary-well-enough-for-the-job/

    it doesn't say anything but contains links to these:
    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-just-dropped-bombshell-hillarys-health-truth-revealed/

    https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

    both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room.

    polecat October 17, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    There's so many elephants in the room, i'd be willing to call it a herd …..

    Sluggeaux October 17, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo here" bribe.

    Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently many, but not me.

    LT October 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    "Public-private partnerships"
    That's higher taxes for pleebs to subsidize corporations.
    Mussolini would be proud.

    Ché Pasa October 17, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?

    There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah, sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.

    Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.

    Oh. Not that we didn't know already.

    The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.

    

    Anon October 17, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black, Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:11 am

    Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.

    Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers' role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience. 

    Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.

    But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced - and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 18, 2016 at 1:04 am

    > Steady as she goes

    I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems, but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change really the way to avoid harm?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:14 am

    The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…

    aab October 18, 2016 at 2:32 am

    The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."

    So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches released.

    I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much. I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?

    Ché Pasa October 18, 2016 at 6:24 am

    Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior, and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent examples. History is filled with them, though.)

    As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't speak well of her.

    Blurtman October 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wall Street fraud = "bad decisions"

    Alex morfesis October 17, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not so much…

    Don Midwest USA October 17, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason, "Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY, followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.

    One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population, Poverty and Pollution.

    Here is how they ran the exercise

    1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related to the other problems. Clearly.

    2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related to all the others

    Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem

    This is from page 4, the second page of the book.

    I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.

    1. List major problems
    2. How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in '84
    3. If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
    4. Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)

    This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes

    5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed

    Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in ATT to transform the company. I failed.

    Moby October 18, 2016 at 1:27 am

    Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job

    Phil October 18, 2016 at 1:35 am

    I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.

    Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must* compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents more benefit, than not.

    That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running in 2020.

    In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!, because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.

    If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy, smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).

    [Oct 14, 2016] leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    FireBrander pazmaker Oct 14, 2016 9:13 AM Hillary Clinton: 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall

    The consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

    [Oct 13, 2016] Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    human October 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
    October 12, 2016

    "Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

    "We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary of State John Kerry

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-01-24/kerry-says-us-saudi-friendship-stronger-than-ever

    "I think it's important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudi Arabia as possible." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-21/saudi-arabia-s-clout-in-washington-isn-t-what-it-used-to-be

    "The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan

    http://www.speaker.gov/general/continuing-dialogue-regional-security-partners-ryan-delegation-travels-riyadh

    "I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator Lindsey Graham

    "There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/21/saudi-arabia-is-facing-unprecedented-scrutiny-from-congress/

    "Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends." Senator John McCain

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

    Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.

    Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.

    According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and logistically supports ISIS.

    How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS?

    The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our enemy.

    The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind eye to that fact.

    As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19 radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.

    We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.

    Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore, this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote to keep Americans safer from terrorism.

    Keep Americans Safe From Radical Sunni Terrorists

    Hold The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Accountable

    Keep JASTA The Law of The Land

    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

    # # #

    September 11th Advocates

    Kristen Breitweiser
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken

    (edited to clean up white space and high bit characters. links tested. any errors are mine)

    [Oct 13, 2016] Cannabis as police profit center: Law enforcement agencies made 574,641 arrests last year for small quantities of the drug intended for personal use

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood October 13, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Just as cops take more money from people with civil forfeiture than burglars do, they arrest more people for cannabis than for all violent crimes combined:

    Law enforcement agencies made 574,641 arrests last year for small quantities of the drug intended for personal use, according to the report, which was released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. The marijuana arrests were about 13.6 percent more than the 505,681 arrests made for all violent crimes, including murder, rape and serious assaults.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/marijuana-arrests.html

    To state it differently, more people are arrested for victimless crimes (where the only complainant is a law enforcement officer) than for crimes in which someone actually suffered harm.

    Fred October 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Jim,

    Of course there were a heck of a lot more victims of violent crime than dope crime:
    http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NCFS-Table.jpg
    Perhaps we should put some of those responsible for that mass black on black violent crime in prison rather than drug offenders. Why doesn't Obama direct his DOJ to do just that?

    Jim Haygood October 13, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Probably the order of magnitude difference in stats relates to "victimizations" vs "arrests."

    Lots of crime reports never result in an arrest.

    Fiver October 13, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    'Perhaps we should put some of those responsible for that mass black on black violent crime in prison rather than drug offenders. Why doesn't Obama direct his DOJ to do just that?'

    Or maybe the US should finally face up to the fact it has never done more than the least it could possibly get away with when it comes to dealing with deeply entrenched systemic racism/poverty.

    JohnnyGL October 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    That's pretty damning on its face. The drug war is the primary function of the police in the USA. Violent stuff is secondary.

    "Tess Borden, a fellow at Human Rights Watch and the A.C.L.U., who wrote the report, found that despite the steep decline in crime rates over the last two decades - including a 36 percent drop in violent crime arrests from 1995 to 2015 - the number of arrests for all drug possessions, including marijuana, increased 13 percent.

    The emphasis on making marijuana arrests is worrisome, Ms. Borden said."

    You bet it is!!!

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
    "... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com
    Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished. No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.

    Breitbart reports further

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Zerohedge has some background on Binney , who is about as rock solid a security analyst as you could get.

    Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.

    We covered it in a 2012 post titled " We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney has to say has become gospel.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    [Oct 12, 2016] The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries

    Notable quotes:
    "... into the field of battle ..."
    "... Nirvana in Fire ..."
    "... Game of Thrones ..."
    "... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 12, 2016 at 11:58 am

    As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a long time.

    . . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.

    Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international market.[16]

    The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Yes, and it was an Exocet that put a big hole in the side of the USS Stark in 1987 .

    The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to worry the biggest militaries.

    Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry. Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations. Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an ex-US combat vessel.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades. Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.

    In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings recently.

    Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access to serious missile technology.

    The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.

    As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    +1 to this

    I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.

    I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves, and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.

    Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to them!

    If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.

    Felix_47 October 12, 2016 at 4:59 am

    I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity. Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 6:40 am

    The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited – to (for example) the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.

    As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as fleet in being , which essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept – continually setting off rumours of new strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these rumours may be true – many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 8:09 am

    A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest. When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest, an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through stupidity and cynicism.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    I recall a NYT or WaPo article saying those Iraqis were convinced the US was in bed with ISIS, too.

    Is there a pattern here?

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

    +10

    Yes, and I still take taxis, so I hear a fair amount of Amharic and other African dialects.

    Unsure what the Uber drivers speak.

    lyman alpha blob October 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands, why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that? It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.

    Ka-ching! – that's why the bombs.

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

    The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

    The worst is atomic war.

    The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

    This world in arms in not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

    It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

    It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

    It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

    We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

    We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

    This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

    This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

    - that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.

    Christopher Fay October 12, 2016 at 5:17 am

    ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.

    The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain says like drunken sailors.

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.tw/2016/08/a-thousand-balls-of-flame.html#more

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other parts of the Russian economy.

    By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However, they've had their white elephants too – their new Yasen Class attack submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault ships from France).

    Cry Shop October 12, 2016 at 5:49 am

    USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to any of Vietnam's interests.

    What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market. Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.

    fajensen October 12, 2016 at 6:45 am

    What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground with the USA.

    I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US offering better terms – at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.

    Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).

    This state of affairs pisses people off.

    In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences what so ever. Because fuck Nürenberg.

    Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America, sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers, those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something will show up?

    Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected – at least for a while*.

    *)
    Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But, everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption from falling off the road.

    This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans are treated like shit too.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure, and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become / is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English / Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western) Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    I am reminded of a friend of mine in South Africa, who was somewhat older than s 20 years Olds.

    Adolf, my friend, was born before WW II, and the name was quite popular then. It became less popular of after WW II.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Bravo! Sorry but I can't resists linking to an old comment of mine to reinforce the point about stupid and weak nations. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/links-101215.html#comment-2501325 .

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails: corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    More current samples for your file sir:
    (1)
    Hungary: MP Questioned Over Fraud Allegations
    https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/5715-hungary-mp-questioned-over-fraud-allegations
    Published: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 12:31
    (2)
    Ukrainian Top Officials Involved in Secret Offshore Deals
    Published: Tuesday, 04 October 2016 09:00
    by Graham Stack
    https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/5691-ukrainian-top-officials-involved-in-secret-offshore-deals
    ======================
    OCCRP: (MORE ARTICLES) https://www.occrp.org/index.php
    ORGANIZED CRIME and CORRUPTION REPORTING PROJECT

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN. Disaster ensued:

    So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium, possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted it would in previous columns .

    Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows, Gutteres won.

    If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?

    Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions. Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.

    At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!

    PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria. Or for any other nation.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    OIFVet (compliments) You may need a new file
    Somewhere over / under the rainbow
    (orchestrated social media unrest)
    (1)
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-secretly-created-cuban-twitter-stir-unrest
    By ALBERTO ARCE and DESMOND BUTLER and JACK GILLUM Apr. 4, 2014 4:25 AM EDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) - In July 2010

    (2)
    White House denies 'Cuban Twitter' ZunZuneo programme was covert
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/white-house-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-covert
    Paul Lewis and Dan Roberts in Washington
    Thursday 3 April 2014 14.26 EDT
    --------------–

    hemeantwell October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.

    The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles" that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.

    Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    (TPP In a Nutshell http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )

    "The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
    Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.
    The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change."

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
    how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
    TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
    by Andrea Germanos
    The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'

    John Rose October 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries, somewhat.
    Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations, corporate predations and financial hegemony.
    Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.

    Dead Squashed Kissinger October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you go to Russia to put them out.

    While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international oversight. The USA does not.

    When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed countries work.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    "RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
    Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
    An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.

    " US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

    In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
    "deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
    their relatives.

    The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests" and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed, trained or supported by the US.

    "If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States," Obama said."
    -----------------------
    To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles –
    .Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
    ..they would be days like this Obama said

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
    (source: http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp )
    "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
    it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."

    Braden Smith October 12, 2016 at 10:07 am

    I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing insurgency against foreign jihadists.

    In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.

    Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.

    The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies would change dramatically.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    It's a good thing. The US has become that quote in The Dark Knight: "you die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."

    Adams October 12, 2016 at 11:43 am

    Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies. We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys, they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .

    Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..

    readerOfTeaLeaves October 12, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Fascinating thread, thanks.
    I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to gain soft power – and revenue.

    The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.

    However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling. " Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust, with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones . (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon Rhys Meyers).

    I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce. And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be quite formidable.

    This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless, the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles, desktops, and smart TVs around the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
    From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line."
    I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power' resource.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.

    I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship. The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists – just look at how a formerly great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces. I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film, but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.

    NotSoSure October 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.

    And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is laughable.

    sgt_doom October 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.

    After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?

    Color me confused . . .

    [Oct 12, 2016] The perfect Trojan Horse Obama was the betrayer in both domestic and foreign policy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
    "... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
    "... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
    "... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
    "... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
    "... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
    "... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
    "... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
    "... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
    "... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
    "... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
    "... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
    "... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
    "... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
    "... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
    "... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
    "... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
    "... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
    "... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
    "... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
    "... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
    "... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
    "... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.

    There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.

    Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial – i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.

    The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure to make things worse.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 5:39 am

    Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.

    That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy towards Russia.

    A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success) with a bucket of salt.

    Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?

    On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday evening and unable to say so.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.

    Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold.

    Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.

    Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 11:55 am

    The list from PuKIm IS his list of accomplisments.

    Apologies to PuKim, I suspect your list is incomplete :-), one significant omission is the Expansion of Warrantless Surveillance of all Peoples.

    This by a constitutional scholar apparently more interested in exploiting perceived holes in the constitution than upholding its grand principles.

    Oops, that's a second great Obama accomplishment that was accidentally omitted form you list above.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    I don't believe Obama could have done otherwise. Without a neolib ideology he would not have made it to President.

    So you are asking him to drop what made him rise to the top.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.

    I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.

    moneta October 12, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the USA.

    The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.

    The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke of change could change course.

    It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.

    For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits the leaders to do it in one scoop.

    Ivy October 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.

    Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it, while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 11:45 am

    As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.

    good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies equally republican.

    See:

    Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria

    Posted: 10 Oct 2016 04:25 AM PDT

    http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/1122-obama-resists-hawks-as-u-s-russia-step-up-war-threats-over-syria
    -----------------
    http://www.justice-integrity.org/

    "Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
    In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke and mirrors clear.

    History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy" that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
    see:
    https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
    http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.'

    Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period.

    The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).

    I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:10 am

    What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.

    Portia October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office.

    sinbad66 October 12, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    A point rarely mentioned. Well said!

    pretzelattack October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court. sorry, running out of time here.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget, the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    In an alternate universe. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada, but I did not think he would accomplish much. Hard to stop a slow moving train.

    sid_finster October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.

    On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.

    With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?"

    Jeremy Grimm October 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule 22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.

    Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us.

    human October 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

    This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:13 am

    What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.

    It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.

    The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."

    [Oct 12, 2016] Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, can shed some light on the political situation and actions of the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. ..."
    "... Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste. ..."
    "... For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 6:54 pm 73

    This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.

    Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina: 1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.

    Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste.

    Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice.

    For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.

    [Oct 11, 2016] The US Surrendered Its Right To Accuse Russia Of War Crimes A Long Time Ago

    Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future: in the next few years.
    Oct 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted the three rules of American exceptionalism :

    3 rules of US Exceptionalism: 1) Our killing is better than theirs; 2) Nothing we do can be "terrorism"; 3) Only enemies are "war criminals"

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 6, 2016

    Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's recent remarks that both Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.

    "Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington, where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent .

    Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.

    Kerry's continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.

    Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute noted :

    " In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said ( vid @1:00) about Syria:

    "'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.'

    " No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria. "

    However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the aid of a few regional players - and with ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure, which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of committing war crimes in the process.

    Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians (what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As noted by Foreign Policy :

    "The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."

    Yemen is the poorest , most impoverished nation in the Arab world . The Saudi-led coalition has been striking refugee camps , schools , wedding parties and well over 100 hospitals to date . The coalition has been strongly suspected of using banned munitions such as cluster bombs. The country now has more than half a million children at serious risk of malnutrition . More than 21 million out of the total population of 25 million are in serious need of basic humanitarian assistance .

    Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family. As Foreign Policy reported in March of this year:

    "According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason. What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."

    At the time this article's publication, over 140 Yemenis had been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major players at the U.N. When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten severe economic retaliation.

    How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear, as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.

    This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could be held accountable, instead of just those who pose an economic threat to the West . Mango327 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM

    If Russia Acted Like The USA...
    http://youtu.be/uhqZFWDeaB4
    SidSays 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 3:50 PM
    All wars are, well...

    All wars are banker's wars .

    Katos 38BWD22 Oct 11, 2016 4:35 PM
    Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "??? This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against humanity and SHOT!
    PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:39 PM

    ... US: "Who you gonna believe, us or your own eyes" ~ Groucho Marx

    Ignatius PrayingMantis Oct 11, 2016 3:58 PM

    "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x

    That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what it might mean. Now we know it in spades.

    Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.

    crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 3:45 PM
    To quote Goebbels:

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

    Chupacabra-322 crazybob369 Oct 11, 2016 4:44 PM
    Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
    Felix da Kat Oct 11, 2016 4:03 PM
    There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute. But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).

    The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.

    And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.

    Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that really is.

    Kyddyl Oct 11, 2016 4:07 PM
    Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children, doctors, nurses and other personell.

    I for one would like to know who it was who flew those planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Oct 11, 2016 4:16 PM
    Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it, we're freedom fighters."

    My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization beyond this is moot.

    Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.

    The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.

    taketheredpill Oct 11, 2016 4:26 PM

    A cynical person might suggest that the volume of US War Drums is inversely proportional to the strength of the US economy.

    It's as if the boys at the top

    1) know the economy is already in the toilet

    2) know that the next financial meltdown is going to be a real hum-dinger

    3) know that the unwashed masses will need a really big distraction when the next meltdown hits

    [Oct 10, 2016] Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    TheCatSaid October 9, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard Theresa May give several years ago.

    Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with elections.

    Duncan Hare October 9, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Power was born in Ireland, I believe.

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield October 9, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    That's correct.

    Matthew G. Saroff October 9, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    And Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi. (She also hangs out with Kissinger)

    [Oct 10, 2016] Key Neocon Calls on US to Oust Putin –

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    October 7, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    Exclusive: A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses $100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.

    Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses a full column in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression, calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans are looking at for the first time."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this challenge."

    That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.

    And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.

    NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.

    That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.

    NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.

    Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013 column also published in The Washington Post.

    In that column, Gershman wrote that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.

    Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian "invasion" and "annexation."

    The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation" or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.

    The ATO, spearheaded by neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion and other extremists, killed thousands of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."

    Blaming Putin

    In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in Russia.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of "mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and adversaries who have met untimely deaths.

    In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such thing.

    "Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.

    Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will" to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic neocon hubris.

    While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.

    Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could succeed.

    Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian "liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.

    Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme might be their last – and the last for all humanity.

    A Neocon Slush Fund

    Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's desires.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.

    But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the offending electoral winner.

    In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

    In one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate," Casey wrote.

    The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.

    But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

    This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.

    The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of Raymond and Casey.

    The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy.

    Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.

    For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.

    "Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."

    Neocon Tag Teams

    From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through."

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.

    Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing "non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.

    For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.

    Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to "restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges."

    Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines or imprisonment.

    But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."

    Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's Gershman. On July 28, 2015, a Post editorial and a companion column by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened Russian sovereignty.

    The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.

    The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an 'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May [2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'

    "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.

    "The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ' foreign agents ' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."

    However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013 column - that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.

    In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy … was declared an "undesirable organization" prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:

    "This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the 'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia."

    The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the column.

    Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?

    And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued rule of Vladimir Putin.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " The Victory of Perception Management. "]

    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 in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Oct 10, 2016] Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S. can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that fight and need to let others take care of it.

    Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good response.

    oh October 9, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.

    Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Ukraine Is Going to Be a Big Problem for the Next U.S. President by Mark Pfeifle

    That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people ("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA (due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
    foreignpolicy.com

    Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity to catalog them.

    ... ... ...

    Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold War.

    ... ... ...

    The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.

    ... ... ...

    Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.

    In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street protests, which Nayem helped organize.

    Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase price was allegedly below market

    The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

    Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home, his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.

    Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.

    The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.

    If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Reply

    allan October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    It looks like the Saudi attack on the funeral in Yemen that killed 82+ people and wounded hundreds
    was carried out using US-made MK-82 bombs.

    Surely John Kerry will call for a war crimes investigation … oh, wait:

    GenDyn gets $39 million contract modification for foreign military bombs [UPI]

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.

    The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, France and Iraq.

    The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10 bomb bodies. …

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:45 am

    allan
    October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    "Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies"
    Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?

    allan October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Hearts and minds:

    Thousands of armed Yemeni protesters call for investigation into wake bombing [Reuters]

    Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.

    The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.

    The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …

    And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
    Or at least Tony Podesta's bank account.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Harvard mafia actions were, of cause, a crime of the century

    crookedtimber.org

    Anarcissie,

    @431

    Harvard mafia actions were, of cause, a crime of the century. The collapse of the Russian economy exceeded the worst declines in the West during the 1930s depression almost twice. But truth be told the system was rotting from within and they could operate only by relying on the local "fifth column" of neoliberalization (Gaidar, Yakovlev, etc).

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
    Marcus Tullius Cicero

    [Oct 09, 2016] Once lauded as a peacemaker, Obamas tenure fraught with war

    Obama is that same war criminal as Bush. just better tanned... I wonder if Clinton will get a Nobel Peace Prize, too?
    Oct 09, 2016 | apnews.com
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term - arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.

    But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops into battle in Afghanistan.

    ... ... ...

    He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RudyM October 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    http://www.wrmea.org/2016-october/lawsuit-aims-to-block-u.s.-aid-to-israel.html

    [Oct 08, 2016] Ignorance and Dishonesty Trump, Hillary, and Nuclear Genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
    "... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
    Antiwar.com

    ... ... ...

    It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.

    Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.

    Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Part of Soviet nomenklatura changed camps and become turncoats fighting tooth and nail for the establishing neoliberal regime in Russia by using "color revolution" mechanisms and relying on support and financing from the USA and other foreign powers (to the tune on one billion in cash) and then helping foreign powers to plunder Russia

    Oct 08, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 10.06.16 at 1:06 pm 42 7

    likbez@415

    "USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless." Yes, well, it is impossible for someone as limited as myself to comment on your spiritual knowledge. But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn from the nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia. Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian businessment. But, quite aside from the gaping seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams. Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance, strikes me as seamy indeed. But you may feel this sort of thing is just law enforcement. Your insistence that the old CP members never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing rather more support. A this point, it appears to be non-factual.

    Will G-R @421 "One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all. It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."

    Two issues arise. First, there are rather obvious transitional points even to reaching today's regime in China. Although such events as the Ching Ming disturbances, the Democracy Wall protests, the slow motion journee at Tian An Men square may have formally failed their aims, there is little reason to doubt powerful effects. The coup that overthrew the so-called Gang of Four was however a huge and extremely obvious transition. Deng's invasion of Vietnam to seal the opening to the US was notable as well.

    Not so long ago, the current leadership purged Bo Xilai relying on testimony from people in admitted contact with foreign powers. How this sort of thing doesn't count is a mystery to me.

    What is not so mysterious is the belief that China is now a capitalist country with the essence of Communism, dictatorship as opposed to the glorious benefits of classless American-style democracy. It is to be expected that any admirer of Orwell would firmly believe, without a moment's hesitation, that a capitalist economy can abolish the business cycle. I think that's silly, but then, I'm not an admirer of Orwell.

    Second, the final lines of Animal Farm are a prediction about the real world. The point about the men being no better than pigs is irrelevant. The point is that the pigs were men, i.e., the same as capitalist oppressors. Aside from being manifest nonsense, this prediction was of course falsified by history. Any notion that the late USSR was a totalitarian terror regime was nonsense. But even if it were, the execution of Beria, Zhukov's coup against the so-called anti-party group, the removal of Khrushchev, the shenanigans of Gorbachev, give the lie to the notion that Stalinism was unchangeable. As for the notion that Soviet socialism was the same as capitalism? Only virulent anti-Communism could make such nonsense acceptable for a minute.

    The final lines have to be read in context with early lines as well. In those lines, Orwell compares the horrors of the Great War to a farm getting run down. It takes a vile human being to do that.

    Will G-R 10.06.16 at 2:45 pm 428

    Lee, if all you're willing to do is compose minor variations on the theme of "you're a fundamentalist! Marxism is a religion!", you don't seem ready to sit at the big-kids' discussion table. I alluded to the idea of Marxist doctrine as dogmatic catechism in an ironic way back @ the second paragraph of #208, but the more serious point from that graf seems relevant here too.

    Steven, you seem to be confused as to what point I was actually making, albeit understandably so because I wasn't entirely clear (which is perhaps a natural outcome of spending too much time trying to get through to liberals). The point isn't that literally no political events have taken place at all in the modern People's Republic of China, it's that the transition from state socialism to neoliberal capitalism didn't require an outright abolition of centralized Party control the way it did in the former USSR. I entirely agree with you about the nonsensical contradictions of the typical Cold Warrior critique, especially when it comes to the USSR: in particular, the economic dynamism of Stalin's time and the relatively dialed-down political repression after the Khrushchev thaw are typically minimalized in order to emphasize the brutality of the Stalin era and the post-Stalin economic stagnation, with no effort to coherently account for any real political or economic shifts within the formal framework of Soviet state socialism. I didn't intend to make such a simpleminded critique, although again I can see how it might have come across that way.

    And neither did I claim to be any great admirer of George Orwell; everything else about his political line aside, nobody who rats out fellow leftists to Red Scare witch-hunters can deserve too much esteem, especially when this involves outing people as gay in the UK in the 1940s. Still, to the extent that he was a leftist critic of actually existing socialisms and has been anachronistically beatified by liberal Cold Warriors as a critic of all socialist projects as inherently repressive, it's hard to deny that liberals' adoption of Animal Farm into their ideological canon has a certain poetic kick given that today's most prominent remaining "actually existing socialists" are among the most ruthless and effective administrators of global imperial capitalism.

    likbez 10.07.16 at 3:36 am 430

    stevenjohnson,
    @427
    likbez@415 " But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn from the nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia."

    This is a topic way too complex for the posts like this one, but considerable part of new Russian neoliberal elite did come from nomenklatura. The most brutal, the most criminal oligarchs came from academia (Berezovsky) and Komsomol elite ( Khodarkovski, in Ukraine Turchinov - who actually was the head of propaganda department of Komsomol )

    Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian businessment.

    This is simply wrong. This is a statement, completely disconnected with reality.

    But, quite aside from the gaping seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams. Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance, strikes me as seamy indeed.

    You are mixing two events which are on completely opposite sides of barricades.

    Your insistence that the old CP members never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing rather more support. A this point, it appears to be non-factual.

    You completely misunderstood and misinterpreted my point. The essence was that certain substratas of Soviet nomenklatura mainly connected with KGB, Komsomol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Academia ( and a couple of other institutions) changed camps and become turncoats fighting tooth and nail for the establishing neoliberal regime in Russia by using "color revolution" mechanisms and relying on support and financing from the USA and other foreign powers (to the tune on one billion in cash) and then helping foreign powers to plunder Russia (which was favorite pastime of many members of Clinton criminal administration; for example Summers).

    Kind of Russian variation of Chicago boys. Or like a bunch of US Trotskyites which became neocons.

    Anarcissie 10.07.16 at 3:56 am 431

    likbez 10.07.16 at 3:36 am @ 430:
    '… Summers….

    This reminds me to yet once again mention How Harvard Lost Russia where Summers is a featured supporting character. Best read it now; copies of it seem to be evaporating from the Net for some reason. A crucial document.

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 07, 2016] The media are misleading the public on Syria by Stephen Kinzer

    Notable quotes:
    "... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
    "... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
    "... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
    "... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
    "... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
    "... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
    "... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
    Feb 18, 2016 | The Boston Globe

    Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

    For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

    This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.

    Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?"

    This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

    Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

    Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

    Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

    Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.

    Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

    Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

    Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

    Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.


    kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM

    The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous.

    When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now, remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the pieces.


    jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM

    "Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."

    I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I DO KNOW that this claim is false.

    tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM

    jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.

    pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM

    Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.

    kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM

    Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs. She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged her on this. He really needs to.

    NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM

    Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way they control the media and by proxy - us!

    [Oct 07, 2016] How Harvard lost Russia

    This is pretty idealized account of Harvard mafia criminal activities but it touched on several important topics and first of all criminality of Clinton administration which intended to weaken and, if possible, dismember Russia (via Chechen trump card as the first move) converting it into vassal state.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development. ..."
    "... in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. ..."
    "... Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement. ..."
    "... Summers was positioned uniquely to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer. ..."
    "... Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December that any is contemplated. ..."
    "... "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority over its students." ..."
    Feb 27, 2006 | institutionalinvestor.com

    Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series of controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.

    Then, in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer and an associate, Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.

    Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator of Summers.

    In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier academic institution.

    ff duty and in swimsuits, the mentor and his protégé strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.

    "You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in Russia."

    It was late August 1996, and Summers, 42, was deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Shleifer, 35, was a rising star in the Harvard University economics department, just as Summers had been 15 years earlier when he had first taken Shleifer under his wing.

    Summers' warning rose out of their pivotal roles in a revolution of global consequence -- the attempt to bring the Russian economy out from the ruins of communism into the promise of Western-style capitalism. Summers, as Treasury's second-in-command, was the architect of U.S. efforts to help Russia. Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development.

    Working on contract for the U.S., HIID advised the Russian government on privatizing its economy and creating capital markets and the laws and institutions to regulate them. Shleifer did not report formally to Summers but rather to the State Department's Agency for International Development, or AID, the spearhead of the U.S.'s foreign aid program.

    Personal affection as much as official concern prompted Summers' admonition. He had come to know that Shleifer and his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, a noted hedge fund manager, had been investing in Russia. Though he didn't know specifics, he understood just enough to worry that the couple might run afoul of myriad conflict-of-interest regulations that barred American advisers from investing in the countries they were assisting.

    Summers did not restrict his warnings to Shleifer.

    "There might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled," Summers told Zimmerman. "You should make sure you're clear with everybody. People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."

    Summers' warnings proved at once prophetic and ineffectual. Even as Shleifer and his wife strove to reassure their friend, they were maneuvering to make an investment in Russia's first authorized mutual fund company. Within eight months their private Russian dealings, together with those of close associates and relatives, would explode in scandal -- bringing dishonor to them, Harvard University and the U.S. government. The Department of Justice would deploy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston to launch a criminal investigation that would uncover evidence of fraud and money laundering, as well as the cavalier use of U.S. government funds to support everything from tennis lessons to vacation boondoggles for Harvard employees and their spouses, girlfriends and Russian pals. It would, in the end, be an extraordinary display of an overweening "best and brightest" arrogance toward the laws and rules that the Harvard people were supposed to live by.

    Says one banker who was a frequent visitor to Russia in that era, "The Harvard crowd hurt themselves, they hurt Harvard, and they hurt the U.S. government."

    Mostly, they hurt Russia and its hopes of establishing a lasting framework for a stable Western-style capitalism, as Summers himself acknowledged when he testified under oath in the U.S. lawsuit in Cambridge in 2002. "The project was of enormous value," said Summers, who by then had been installed as the president of Harvard. "Its cessation was damaging to Russian economic reform and to the U.S.-Russian relationship."

    Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity. The failure to reform Russia's legal system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront economic and financial challenges today (see box, page 77).

    Harvard vigorously defended its work in Russia, but in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Last August, nine years after Summers and his protégé took their stroll along that Truro beach, Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement.

    Russia's struggles today certainly don't result entirely from Harvard's misdeeds or Shleifer's misconduct. There is plenty of blame to share. It is difficult to overstate the challenge of transforming the economic and legal culture, not to mention the ancient pathologies, of a huge, enigmatic nation that once spanned one sixth of the earth's land surface, 150 ethnicities and 11 time zones. The Marshall Plan, by comparison, was simple.

    Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart. But as a Harvard economics professor in the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the 1990s and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer.

    Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December that any is contemplated.

    Throughout the otherwise voluble university community, there has been an odd silence about the entire affair. Discussions mostly have taken place sotto voce in deans' offices or in local Cambridge haunts, such as the one where a well-connected Harvard personage expressed deep concern, telling II: "Larry's handling of the Shleifer matter raises very basic questions about the way he governs Harvard. This is fraught with significance. It couldn't be more fraught."

    The silence is now beginning to break, thanks to the leadership of academic worthies like former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis, who is finishing a book about the university to be published in the spring by Perseus Public Affairs. Lewis agreed to show II the manuscript, in which he asserts, "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority over its students."

    Whether this new questioning will erupt into yet another crisis engulfing Summers and the university remains unclear. What is certain, though, is that the story of Harvard and its representatives' malfeasance, told in full for the first time over the following pages, shows how much damage can be done when the considerable power and resources of the U.S. government are placed in the wrong hands.

    THE SEEDS OF RUSSIAN REFORM WERE planted in the late 1980s -- when Russia was the Soviet Union and Harvard hadn't yet arrived. The U.S.S.R.'s seven-decade experiment with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism lay in shambles. By 1989, even as the Berlin Wall fell in Germany, the Soviet Union and its economy were imploding.

    Reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party, strove to introduce limited economic and political change. The first competitive elections for the Congress of People's Deputies were held in March 1989. In May 1990, Gorbachev's populist rival, the maverick Boris Yeltsin, was elected chairman of the Russian Republic's Parliament. A month later Russia declared itself independent of the Soviet Union.

    That summer Gorbachev and Yeltsin ordered two economists to draw up a "500 Days" plan for converting the Soviet Union to a market economy based on private property. Gorbachev also sought advice from the West. In October 1990 the then-chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, John Phelan Jr., led a group of U.S. securities lawyers and academics to Moscow to begin showing the Soviets how to form capital markets. The meeting was organized by the Big Board's Russian-speaking legal counsel, Richard Bernard, then 40.

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 07, 2016] Alliance with Al-Queda to remove Assad is now official Washington groupthink that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
    "... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
    "... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
    "... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC : October 06, 2016 at 08:34 AM New 'Group Think' for War with Syria/Russia
    October 5, 2016

    Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed Russia.

    Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq.

    Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one, U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists , there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
    .................................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/

    [Oct 05, 2016] The VP Debate and Syria The American Conservative

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:

    Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."

    Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence outlined.

    That last part is not really true. Trump has endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.

    Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for his party's ticket.

    Who Stole The Strawberries?, says: October 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    " it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"

    I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.

    Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval Office for the fifth time.

    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:13 am
    As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.

    So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at the administration any chance you get).

    As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.

    But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah, but he's with Trump..ewww."

    It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's an actual strong case.

    The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream or the enemy.

    Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?

    I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I would have liked that campaign very much.

    Old Dominionite , says: October 5, 2016 at 2:51 am
    If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.

    Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard when it comes to "experts".

    Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.

    furbo , says: October 5, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America 'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
    VikingLS , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:40 am
    If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.

    Either way this is very disappointing and stupid.

    collin , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners personality are dominant this cycle.

    Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.

    Nestor , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform

    Idiotic.

    Take Trump out of it, and you have more of the same GOP neoconservatism as ever:

    -more pretend-resistance-but-actual-enabling of illegal immigration
    -more wars-on-behalf-of-Israel neocon interventionism
    -more manufacturing-base-killing free trade

    Trump is the ONLY reason these three toxic policies are even being challenged.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 5, 2016 at 9:04 am
    "The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking"

    I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.

    But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence, but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.

    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands dying.

    As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush 43 did to his.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am
    "Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.

    So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.

    This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not really understand the ramifications of their actions.

    LHM , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
    Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?
    RadicalCenter2 , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:21 am
    LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the USA:

    China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics, culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British" Columbia), and Australia, in particular).

    Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.

    Anonne , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:34 am
    Pence did a better job selling his party because Pence thoroughly invented a different running mate.
    Chris Chuba , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
    How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3.
    1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
    2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them).
    3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.

    In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?

    Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.

    EdK , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria. To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria the cradle of Christianity.
    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    @LHM

    "Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."

    it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting both sides at the same time depending on the location.

    It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding the region was a bad idea.

    " This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"

    My belief.

    Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since "liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance instead of single-payer.

    Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright ignore them.

    So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told them they were pretty and deserved better.

    Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.

    It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube comment section.

    DES , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support getting deeply involved in Syria?

    In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president.

    the danger of reinfestation , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    "In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president."

    Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.

    Paul Asay , says: October 5, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an election or you look weak.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm
    @EdK

    Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast. Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.

    rayray , says: October 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    @Paul Asay

    "My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria."

    One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out? Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?

    [Oct 05, 2016] They took one Saddam, but got us many more

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
    "... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
    "... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
    "... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
    "... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
    "... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
    "... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
    "... "inadequate" ..."
    "... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
    "... "good faith". ..."
    "... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
    "... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
    "... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
    "... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
    "... "chaos" ..."
    "... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
    "... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
    Jul 08, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT UK

    Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55 Get short URL

    Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," 25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."

    Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.

    Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day and time "when the missile hit my home."

    "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.

    That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.

    The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family of peaceful farmers.

    "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."

    Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

    "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he said.

    The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences. It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.

    Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".

    "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."

    "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" he says.

    The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented with a certainty that was not justified."

    Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.

    "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," Abbas said.

    He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.

    "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," he added.

    Read more:

    Following the Chilcot Report, time for a proper reckoning 7/7 London bombings, 11yrs on: Iraq War raised terror threat, Chilcot suggests British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq, says Chilcot

    [Oct 04, 2016] Should the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a museum of savage stupidity and war crimes ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
    "... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
    "... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
    "... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
    "... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
    "... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
    "... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
    "... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
    "... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
    "... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:48 pm 284

    @ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)

    Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood by all as having the same meaning.

    The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number 1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.

    The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and moral existence of the known universe.

    The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.

    Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.

    When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:54 pm 286
    For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245272/

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:22 am
    @ 300 "Assad Must Go" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385354

    Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.

    The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss.

    All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
    ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years ago.

    Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage, but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating in Syria and western Iraq.

    You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.

    The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.

    The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.

    It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.

    The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world, so what's the big deal?

    Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
    @ 305 Hi Merian.

    Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion (biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary CBS video for them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/we-came-we-saw-he-died-%E2%80%93-revisiting-incredible-disaster-libya

    Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.

    See what happens.

    Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
    I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate that she was a principle architect of either project.
    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 5:15 am 316
    314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."

    That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however, suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you.

    HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
    Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

    JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

    Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

    stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

    LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

    I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

    I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

    I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

    I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

    Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

    Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

    We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

    I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

    I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

    While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

    The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

    In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

    But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
    @328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record. Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.

    The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution. Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN, or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes a little weaker.

    Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US.

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
    Rich Puchalsky @ 334

    People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.

    I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.

    No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.

    I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard. I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359

    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm 389

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.

    That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find one.

    Ogden Wernstrom 10.04.16 at 5:11 pm 400
    @389, Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm:

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels…

    Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.

    Apologies to Vonnegut.

    Guy Harris 10.04.16 at 5:28 pm
    The Lord of the Rings is history written by the winners .

    [Oct 04, 2016] By 60th the isea of self-determination and national independence became too powerful to resist by old colonial powers and a new mode of colonization via debt slavery was invented

    Notable quotes:
    "... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 4:51 pm 399

    @Anarcissie
    The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be wound down and dissolved, and so they were.

    British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars (Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina) France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g. Kenya ) of its colonies relatively peacefully.

    Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.

    A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:

    Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding "more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.

    [*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp. 128-29.

    Anarcissie 10.04.16 at 4:15 pm
    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
    The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt. The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.

    But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.

    As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'

    In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
    "... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
    "... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
    "... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
    "... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
    "... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
    "... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
    "... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter T 10.02.16 at 10:49 am 320

    As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.

    Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
    LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.

    @306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
    @316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"

    It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.

    It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)

    Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot.

    Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.

    Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)

    The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)

    The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation, emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.

    Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…

    I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.

    As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry," because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Obama restraint in foreign policy is as fake as change we can beleave in

    Notable quotes:
    "... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    "Who, really, could have imagined that US 'benevolent' bombings would place Russian and US troops in close proximity once again"

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm 363

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    [Oct 04, 2016] MH17 How investigators were able to prove rebels shot down plane with missile from Russia

    I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory) it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place -- and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
    "... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | independent.co.uk
    Investigators have released footage showing the missile system used to down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 being transported from Russia by rebels.

    International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777 and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern Ukraine .

    A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.

    Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.

    6-Ukraine.jpg Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash

    The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.

    In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to show a panicked militant saying MH17 was shot down in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.

    He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper."

    Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks nearby.

    Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance, a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.

    The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."

    Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.

    Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.

    An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.

    "Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore, the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17," Bellingcat's report concluded.

    "This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17 from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders: Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin ."

    Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.

    The Russian government refuted the JIT's findings and accused the report of being "biased and politically motivated".

    Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.

    "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them."

    Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence.

    In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces were stationed there.

    "We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.

    The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.

    Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence of the investigation".

    The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.

    When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.

    A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster, adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"

    Read more

    [Oct 02, 2016] Paul Craig Roberts Urges Bring Back The Cold War Zero Hedge

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.

    During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

    Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.

    Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime to raise tensions with Russia and China.

    China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia" and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.

    Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

    Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.

    Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.

    This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics, to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system was sent back to Russia.

    How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?

    Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?

    It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize Syria and Iran.

    In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a better future."

    But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's leaders commitment to strategic stability."

    Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's buildup upsets "strategic stability."

    What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."

    US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.

    There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.

    On September 28, 2016, the New York Times gave us a good example of how Washington's propaganda system works .

    The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."

    The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"

    The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy . . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.

    When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?

    Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.

    This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are still functioning.

    Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.

    Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions. According to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money, have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."

    This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda, because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English, not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.

    To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their decision.

    To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."

    "Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China. So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China. This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.

    Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.

    One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.

    The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies as if they are facts.

    Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.

    Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However, Zakharova thinks the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point of conflict with Russia.

    The US presstitutes are disreputable. This morning NPR presented us with a report on Chinese censorship of the media as if this was something that never happens in the US. Yet NPR not only censors the news, but uses disinformation as a weapon in behalf of Washington and Israel's agendas. Anyone who depends on NPR is presented a very controlled picture of the world. And do not forget German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte, who admits he planted stories for the CIA in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitnung and says that there is no significant European journalist who doesn't do the same thing .

    The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs. If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.

    The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of its hold on US resources.

    As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external Soviet threat:

    "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

    President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.

    In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."

    Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism." So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored. Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.

    Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.

    The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers' pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the war but is open to American influence and commerce.

    Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming, birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.

    The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.

    This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.

    Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are driving the world to Armageddon.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : September 30, 2016 at 09:01 AM

    Peres stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran 2 years ago

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shimon-peres-netanyahu-iran-2016-9

    "Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"

    by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m

    " Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."

    Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24, 2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."

    [Oct 01, 2016] If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude : September 30, 2016 at 07:38 AM

    Amazing how stupid congress can be. I know the politics that drove this mistake, but why did the leadership in congress allow this to be voted on?

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

    If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits. Our government and soldiers would be the most vulnerable in the whole world.

    If our courts were to begin collections of judgments from sovereign states the results would be that no foreign government would want to hold assets in this country.

    I certainly sympathize with the 9/11 victim families, although they have been compensated for their loss with way more money than any of the foreign collateral damage victims of our military actions.

    The families may not understand this, but they will never collect a dime. On the other hand, this legislation to "help" them will do a lot of damage to the country and its soldiers.

    How did sympathy for these families let our congress members trap themselves in such a stupendous blunder. I guess election season is a time for that kind of stuff.

    reason -> DeDude... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:52 AM
    It is this sort of legislation that has made the US so hated around the world. The US just can't seem to internalize that being sovereign doesn't imply sovereignty over the rest of the world, that that sovereignty ends at the border.

    As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts.

    The US is also as far as I know the only country that thinks it has the right to kill the citizens of other countries outside its borders.

    And then it seems that many US citizens seem to think they are not bound by the rules of physics, or logic or arithmetic.

    US exceptionalism has gone on long enough. It is about time the US came back to earth and decided it is just another country on earth.

    efcdons -> reason ... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts."

    Why is that nuts? Do non-resident citizens no longer have access to consulate services? Does the citizenship lapse such that one can't come back to the US whenever they want?

    The US keeps going while the citizen is abroad. It's not outrageous to ask them to contribute something (not much, the credit for overseas taxes paid is pretty high).

    DeDude -> efcdons... , -1
    We are the only ones that assume people will come back unless they renounce their citizenship.

    It is only fair that you get taxed for the government services you receive. Therefore, you should be taxed in the country where you live. There is no justification for taxing income earned in a foreign country.

    The value of consulate services are so small that it cost more to recover them than deliver them. So the rest of the world does not use that lame excuse to tax citizens living abroad.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israels nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail

    Notable quotes:
    "... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
    "... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    geoffrey gray October 1, 2016 at 7:21 am

    obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.

    ambrit October 1, 2016 at 8:07 am

    This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans.

    Barmitt O'Bamney October 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the peace of the grave maybe…)

    [Oct 01, 2016] Mike Pence slams Hillary Clinton as the architect of Barack Obamas foreign policy

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect" of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable in less than a decade.

    Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad, attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.

    "You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers, that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia, and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness on the world stage."

    "Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten our allies."

    Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential debate.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
    Sep 29, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

    This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
    "... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
    "... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
    "... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
    "... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
    "... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
    "... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
    "... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
    "... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
    "... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
    "... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
    "... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
    "... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    One has to wonder just how much longer the American people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

    Recent headlines have captured the character of this failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released finding s that "corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."

    Earlier this month, a British Parliament study found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."

    Airstrikes and drone attacks are accidentally killing thousands of civilians, aid workers , wedding parties , and now even the troops of a nation against whom we are not at war. Each of these mistakes, repeated hundreds of times over the past 15 years, creates more antagonism and hatred of the United States than any other single event. Whatever tactical benefit some of the strikes do accomplish, they are consumed in the still-worsening strategic failure the misfires cause.

    Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:

    These continued and deepening failures kill unknown numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the hatred many have of America , and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another, less obvious but more troubling cost.

    Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15 years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the lifespan of each aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and depleting stocks of bombs and missiles.

    The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and worn out countless weapons . The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the expense of conventional military training.

    This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the training time to high-end conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

    Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.

    As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.

    Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.

    It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.

    It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests, and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.

    If the incoming administration does not recognize this deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic military failure. I pray it is the former.

    Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).

    [Oct 01, 2016] Trump and the Social Basis of Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes. ..."
    "... I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe. ..."
    "... Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya. ..."
    "... She does defend the Iranian agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks. ..."
    "... So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump? ..."
    "... The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump. ..."
    "... Which is the fact that the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump. I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight ahead news coverage. ..."
    "... I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. ..."
    "... Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New Deal won out. ..."
    "... Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union, the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in the double digits in terms of the thousands. ..."
    "... today one of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. ..."
    "... So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than it was in 1936 for example. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | therealnews.com
    ... ... ...

    HORNE: Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes. ...

    ... ... ....

    JAY: And what about in the swing states?

    HORNE: Well that's hearts of a different color. I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe.

    ... ... ...

    JAY: So that's what I want to dig into on the foreign policy side. Because there's been a lot of debate about who's really more dangerous on the foreign policy side. Frankly I think you could make the argument both ways. Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya.

    On the other hand, she does and I think in my mind this might be the deciding factor is that she does defend the agreement with Iran even though I don't know how enthusiastic she was in the beginning and even though she tells lies about the Iranian nuclear program. She does defend the Iranian agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks.

    So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump?

    HORNE: Well I think that's a fair point. Keep in mind not only is Donald Trump hostile to the Iranian nuclear deal. He's told the voters of South Florida he'll break away from President Obama's [en tant] with Cuba. The fact that in the first few moments of the debate last night, he tore and tore to China is not reassuring. His hostility towards Mexico bids fair to ratchet up tension and pressure and hostility toward the Mexican-American and Latino population. So I whole-ly and totally understand the fear and fright on the left with regard to a Trump presidency. At the same time there's more than one way to try to defeat Donald Trump and the way that is now being suggested which is witling down the Green vote from 3% to 1.5%, it seems to me that's almost like a waste of time.

    JAY: Why do you think progressive forces and such have so little influence amongst that section of the working class that supports Trump? Although I have to add my barber, his father he was telling me, 33 years in the military supported Sanders and now supports Trump. It's a complicated mix of why people are supporting Trump.

    HORNE: Well it's very complicated. We'd have to take a stroll down memory lane. We'd have to go into the corners of US history and talk about the United States was formed as a slave holder's republic despite the propaganda to the contrary and there was a kind of [falstry] [embargins] between the Euro-American poor and working class and the Euro-American ruling elite to loot and plunder the Native Americans and then stock the Native America's former land with Africans and that kind of trend has continued down to this very day. Facilitating [falstry] [embargins] and corrupt bargains between the ruling elite and the working class. The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump.

    ... ... ...

    JAY: But that's highly unlikely isn't it? Especially given the preponderance of the elites seem to be supporting Clinton including much of the Republican elites.

    HORNE: You are correct. As a matter of fact, you've hit on a very important point which I think might be helping to push working class voters toward Trump. Which is the fact that the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump. I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight ahead news coverage.

    I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. To your main point I do think it is unlikely that the electoral college would overturn the results of the November vote. At the same time, the strange political times, I don't think we could rule anything out.

    JAY: Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New Deal won out.

    The idea of a compromise with the working class and trying to create the conditions for a revival of the economy based on state intervention, Keynesian kind of expansion of stimulus and so on and so on. More or less trying to forestall deeper radicalization of the American working class and not impose a direct kind of police state militarism and so on. Do you think the conditions are different now in the sense that there are more of the elites willing to go down that kind of road, which I think is representative not so much by Trump's rhetoric but by his alliance?

    HORNE: Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union, the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in the double digits in terms of the thousands.

    Today we're facing the industrialization today one of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia.

    So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than it was in 1936 for example.

    [Oct 01, 2016] John Helmer Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government Are

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
    "... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
    "... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
    "... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
    "... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
    "... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
    "... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
    "... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
    "... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
    "... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
    "... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
    "... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
    "... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
    "... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
    "... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
    "... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
    "... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
    "... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
    "... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
    "... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
    "... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
    "... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
    "... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
    "... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
    "... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
    "... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
    "... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
    "... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
    "... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
    "... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
    "... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
    "... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
    "... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
    "... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
    "... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
    "... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
    "... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
    "... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
    "... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
    "... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
    "... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
    "... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
    "... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
    "... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
    "... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
    "... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
    "... any of the suspects ..."
    "... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
    "... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
    "... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
    "... constant bearing, reducing range ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on September 30, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. Note that Robert Parry also has serious doubts about the latest MH17 report .

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.

    The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements of intention, causation, and culpability:

    1. the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
    2. they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
    3. the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
    4. the warhead detonated;
    5. the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.

    On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor, one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they provided the world's press, read this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their proof of what could not have happened. Click to watch .

    The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen, the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the BUK missile] was not there."

    Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt.

    Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?

    What evidence is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle is not very large for target interception."

    Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.

    Source: JIT presentation of NATO test-firing of BUK warhead in Finland -- https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

    Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015, 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes

    BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES

    DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL

    Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

    For more details, read this .

    The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.

    According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?

    According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered. Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.

    The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.

    "The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0 -- minute 20:51.

    Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.

    So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen, along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?

    A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.

    KEY
    Red line - MH 17.
    Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
    Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei version.
    Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html

    Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites there is all the difference in the world

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 6:50 am

    What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.

    It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated.

    The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:

    1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed upon);
    2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition highly likely given the evidence);
    3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist groups abruptly cancelled);
    4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an Al-Nusra false flag action);
    5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
    6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
    7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);

    Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .

    We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.

    Carolinian September 30, 2016 at 8:22 am

    Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 9:47 am

    There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.

    Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention.

    human September 30, 2016 at 11:41 am

    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

    He went on to explain:

    "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    - David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

    David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    The alleged poisoning of V. Yuschenko.

    The murder of G. Gongadze.

    The alleged Russian invasion of South Ossetia.

    Tinky September 30, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Excellent work. Thank you.

    Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.

    That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.

    Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?

    Nelson Lowhim October 1, 2016 at 5:46 am

    I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason not to. Am I missing something?

    BringOnTheHotWar September 30, 2016 at 7:08 am

    We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s.

    And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets. DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.

    ltr September 30, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/vladimir-putins-outlaw-state.html

    September 28, 2016

    Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State

    Mr. Putin's behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only rules designed to promote peace but common human decency.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 30, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement & Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label, they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".

    So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.

    hemeantwell September 30, 2016 at 8:58 am

    It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate.

    Paid Minion September 30, 2016 at 8:17 am

    The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.

    Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so Ukrainian jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.

    As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect.

    And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything about airplanes shot that one full of holes.

    But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian controlled territory

    If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers? All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting at.

    Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………

    A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane, who subsequently were made to "disappear"?

    vidimi September 30, 2016 at 8:18 am

    more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs clinton takes over the white house.

    Nikki September 30, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all, how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Bill Smith September 30, 2016 at 10:37 am

    The simplest explanation is that the rebels made a mistake and shot the wrong plane down.

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    While I don't pretend to know who shot mh17 down or why, an simpler explanation is that the junta government did so.

    They were known to have Buk anti-aircraft rockets in the area.

    So far, I have seen only conjecture that the rebels did.

    pictboy3 September 30, 2016 at 10:50 am

    This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians did it.

    Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who need to look at which side of it they're standing on.

    ChrisFromGeorgia September 30, 2016 at 10:59 am

    The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another.

    In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests.

    I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left.

    Iceland, maybe?

    Vatch September 30, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?

    Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.

    I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.

    Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck is that?

    hunkerdown September 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.

    Johan Telstad September 30, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Thank you!
    I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.

    He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).

    BTW, if you want a real expert on Russia, try someone like Mark Galeotti ( https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com ).

    OIFVet September 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Helmer spills a lot of ink as a kremlin mouthpiece, "everybody's gotta eat" I guess.

    How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots?

    how can one assume anyone in the cockpit was looking out the window as it was on autopilot, no less in the relevant piece of sky?

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular.

    Tobin Paz September 30, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.

    In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."

    The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery.

    Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major target of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops so that they could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population. The water crisis created continues to this day.

    The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion. I will only mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show that it was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".

    This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014, they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.

    As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly.

    Expat September 30, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.

    So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch.

    tgs September 30, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch

    And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter.

    visitor September 30, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:

    1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.

    2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted from Ukrainian reserves.

    3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.

    There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).

    The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).

    The investigation does not pass the smell test.

    sid_finster September 30, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Verily.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
    JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it.

    Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication. That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.

    My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was a commercial airliners.

    Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war

    zapster September 30, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.

    optimader September 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?

    The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical.

    visitor October 1, 2016 at 7:06 am

    A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.

    (a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17 downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars monitoring the battlefield…

    (b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible. No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion can strike in a matter of weeks.

    (c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.

    (d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.

    Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.

    Crazy Horse September 30, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Add two more suspects to the list:

    4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit the ground.

    5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.

    A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply crime scene logic:

    MOTIVE:
    Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.

    On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.

    MEANS:
    If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.

    OPPORTUNITY:
    The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist with logistics?

    Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.

    Optimader October 1, 2016 at 12:14 am

    Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.

    Now then, the facts in this case are:

    the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!

    Cause of death:
    Four bullets in the chest. Fact!

    The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!

    Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!

    The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!

    Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
    [snaps his pointing stick]

    Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.

    And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.

    Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?

    Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.

    Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
    Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?

    Clouseau: Instinct!

    Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…

    Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.

    Veri September 30, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    Why did this story on MH17 come out now?

    Al Nusra senior commander admits US is on Jihadis side.

    Reported in German Press.

    likbez September 30, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.

    You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.

    The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.

    Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very beginning" hypothesis:

    1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy. To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?

    3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.

    4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those records were never presented to international investigation commission.

    5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to classify the results of investigation ?

    6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.

    7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?

    8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications (unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together to implicate rebels)

    9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign

    10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly shoot down MH17.

    11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.

    Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars day in and day out….

    VietnamVet September 30, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.

    Skippy September 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Yeah its a wee bit like taking a Contiki tour through a combatant zone…..

    https://www.contiki.com/au/en?c3apiks=110690064669&contiki%20tours&e&gclid=CKHN-vnBuM8CFQQDvAodwYQAgw&kendelid=p.403.95c0db64-851a-46c8-b140-c9362dc078a4.cr2408100

    Disheveled Marsupial… Like the ad saez…. "One Life. One Shot. Make it Count‎"….

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 5:24 am

    As to the questions…

    (i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. 120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.

    (ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out – which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react. So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.

    (iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range ' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured for quite a while.

    And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated. But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that (i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 11:59 am

    This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes or more before dissipating.

    But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located "via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.

    Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military, no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.

    As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier plane, why not a later plane ?

    Anonymous X October 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist – link
    You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following the photos and witness reports.

    The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.

    As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of MH17).

    Yves Smith Post author October 1, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence" as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.

    likbez October 1, 2016 at 5:25 pm
    Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your supreme confidence is very suspect.

    I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth. You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting "separatists did it" evidence.

    BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.

    And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction of "false flag".

    Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy ) .

    BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.

    Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…

    As for Su25 you are way to too quick to dismiss this possibility: IMHO there was some evidence of presence of the plane from Rostov airport radar telemetry. It was long ago and I do not remember details but there is a collection of materials on the Web with "week-by-week" selections at
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Propaganda/Tragedy_of_flight_MH17/Bulletin/mh17_bulletin0719.shtml

    Please compare your version with the selection.

    Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.

    Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy, I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controllers for this day?

    https://www.sott.net/article/329653-The-JIT-MH17-report-Troubling-gaps-vague-evidence

    The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO) intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down. A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not the rebels.

    Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Scan and go as surveillance tool

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    temporal September 25, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Scan and go.

    Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.

    While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process the details online.

    All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.

    Pavel September 25, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze?

    Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps will be more precise and less optional.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
    "... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
    Sep 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Katniss Everdeen

    RE: I Was RFK's Speechwriter. Now I'm Voting for Trump. Here's Why. Politico (RR)

    Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations.

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies" should sound an alarm.

    No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility" seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.

    I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.

    subgenius September 25, 2016 at 11:33 am

    No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does.

    [Sep 28, 2016] We No Longer Live in a Democracy Henry Giroux on a United States at War With Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. ..."
    "... War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life ..."
    "... Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms. ..."
    "... The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence. ..."
    "... This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. ..."
    "... A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. ..."
    "... Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics. ..."
    "... America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom. ..."
    "... The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures. ..."
    "... We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. ..."
    "... We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class ..."
    "... As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    Henry Giroux: FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. What this suggests and the book takes up in multiple ways is that the United States is at war with its own idealism, democratic institutions, the working and middle classes, minority youth, Muslims, immigrants and all of those populations considered disposable.

    War has taken on an existential quality in that we are not simply at war; rather, as Étienne Balibar insists, "we are in war," inhabiting a war culture that touches every aspect of society. War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life, and a culture of fear, which have become its most important regulative functions. Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms.

    As a comprehensive war machine, the United States operates in the service of a police state, violates civil liberties and has given rise to a military-industrial-surveillance complex that President Eisenhower could never have imagined. For instance, the largest part of the federal budget -- 600 billion dollars -- goes to the military. The US rings the earth with military bases, and the US military budget is larger than those of all other advanced industrial countries combined. And that doesn't count the money spent on the National Surveillance State and intelligence agencies.

    ... ... ...

    What's interesting about the war metaphor is that it produces a language that celebrates what the US should be ashamed of, including the national surveillance state, the military-industrial complex, the war on whistleblowers, the never-ending spectacle of violence in popular culture and endless wars abroad. The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence.

    Violence is not only normalized as the ultimate measure for solving problems, but also as a form of pleasure, especially with regard to the production of violent video games, films and even the saturation of violence in daily mainstream news. Violence saturates American life, as it has become cool to be cruel to people, to bully people and to be indifferent to the suffering of others. The ultimate act of pleasure is now served up in cinematically produced acts of extreme violence, produced both to numb the conscience and to up the pleasure quotient.

    This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. One can't have a democracy that organizes itself around war because war is the language of injustice -- it admits no compassion and revels in a culture of cruelty.

    How does the reduction of life to quantitative data -- testing in schools, mandatory minimums in sentencing, return on investment -- feed into the cultural apparatuses producing a nation at war with itself?

    This is the language of instrumental rationality gone berserk, one that strips communication of those issues, values and questions that cannot be resolved empirically. This national obsession with data is symbolic of the retreat from social and moral responsibility. A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. This type of positivism encourages a form of thoughtlessness, undermines critical agency, makes people more susceptible to violence and emotion rather than reason. Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics.

    The obsession with data becomes a convenient tool for abdicating that which cannot be measured, thus removing from the public sphere those issues that raise serious questions that demand debate, informed judgment and thoughtfulness while taking seriously matters of historical consciousness, memory and context. Empiricism has always been comfortable with authoritarian societies, and has worked to reduce civic courage and agency to an instrumental logic that depoliticizes people by removing matters of social and political responsibility from ethical and political considerations.

    America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom.

    This is not to say that all data is worthless or that data gathering is entirely on the side of repression. However, the dominant celebration of data, metrics and quantification flattens the human experience, outsources judgement and distorts the complexity of the real world. The idolatry of the metric paradigm is politically and ethically enervating and cripples the human spirit.

    As you have written and said often, the right takes the pedagogical function of the major cultural apparatuses seriously, while the left not so much. What do progressive forces lose when they abandon the field?

    In ignoring the power of the pedagogical function of mainstream cultural apparatuses, many on the left have lost their ability to understand how domination and resistance work at the level of everyday life. The left has relied for too long on defining domination in strictly structural terms, especially with regard to economic structures. Many people on the left assume that the only form of domination is economic. What they ignore is that the crises of economics, history, politics and agency have not been matched by a crisis of ideas. They don't understand how much work is required to change consciousness or how central the issue of identification is to any viable notion of politics. People only respond to a politics that speaks to their condition. What the left has neglected is how matters of identification and the centrality of judgment, belief and persuasion are crucial to politics itself. The left underestimates the dimensions of struggle when it gives up on education as central to the very meaning of politics.

    The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures.

    What do you want people to take away from the book?

    Certainly, it is crucial to educate people to recognize that American democracy is in crisis and that the forces that threaten it are powerful and must be made visible. In this case, we are talking about the merging of neoliberalism, institutionalized racism, militarization, racism, poverty, inequities in wealth and power and other issues that undermine democracy.

    We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. To understand that, we need to connect the dots and make often isolated forms of domination visible -- extending from the war on terror and the existence of massive inequalities in wealth and power to the rise of the mass incarceration state and the destruction of public and higher education. We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class, while exposing the workings of a system that extorts money, uses prison as a default welfare program and militarizes the police as a force for repression and domestic terrorism. We must learn how to translate individual problems into larger social issues, create a comprehensive politics and a third party with the aim not of reforming the system, but restructuring it. As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Angela Merkel Will Stop Illegal Migration

    Notable quotes:
    "... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
    "... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
    "... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations.

    "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.

    In February, Germany accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed asylum applicants.

    "It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW reports .

    Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.

    The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently surged in the polls, even overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown. The CDU also had their worst election result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Berlin Election Outcome Signals Merkels Tenuous Grip on Chancellorship

    Notable quotes:
    "... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
    "... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
    "... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
    "... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
    "... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
    "... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
    "... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
    "... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
    "... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
    "... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
    "... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
    "... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
    "... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
    "... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
    "... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
    "... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
    "... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
    "... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pavel September 24, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage. (Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):

    Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.

    If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers, as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria. Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism, right?

    Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.

    Dirk77 September 24, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors. Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job well.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane.

    Hayek's Heelbiter September 24, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    This quote is the "yang" to the "yin" of Yves' column posted on September 21, 2016: Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.

    Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely?

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:00 am

    Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.

    as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."

    hemeantwell September 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a large May Day rally.

    At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.

    As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has the same general source.

    Skip Intro September 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members of the 'stay behind' organizations (see Operation Gladio ), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.

    On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking.

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany. Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.

    Norb September 24, 2016 at 10:07 am

    The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as the destructive force that it truly is.

    The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can movement be made.

    The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.

    Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion. Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion, in essence, is a military force.

    The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.

    Rosario September 25, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.

    Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.

    In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented, all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a racist, rogue state.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 11:44 am

    " AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's built basically on racism."

    Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….

    Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will be yours.

    If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees. It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years. Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.

    Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large, that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.

    bmeisen September 25, 2016 at 12:50 am

    spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems". The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment. Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard to account for German fear.
    The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters with very real fears.

    lin1 September 25, 2016 at 1:34 am

    FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.

    His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.

    Plenue September 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."

    That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees in the first place.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.

    Vikas September 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.

    Micky9finger September 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
    They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally brilliant idea.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?

    Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-expects-migration-to-add-to-unemployment/a-19478546

    in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab, hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte Größe fest angestellt zu haben.

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mittelstand-als-hoffnungstraeger-fuer-fluechtlinge-14323607.html

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.

    But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+ years before.

    Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking it into old England.

    S M Tenneshaw September 24, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    You mean "Sephardic" as in Wells Fargo? Cracka, please.

    Jeff September 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Let me see if I understand this:

    1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these refugees.

    2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea. I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.

    So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the US as responsible?

    I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever, the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and refugees would have headed for Europe.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.

    The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria

    By Pepe Escobar

    September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.

    Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake' in Deir Ezzor.

    The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

    As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):

    "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".

    The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.

    It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

    It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).

    It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake" is just a pesky detail.

    It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.

    No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance, the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere does not disappoint.

    The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Thanks. Let's not forget the initial peace talks which the US helped to scuttle.

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate Syrian rebels" is about?

    Noonan September 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    "the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their big call."

    Sounds like a winning platform to me.

    [Sep 26, 2016] It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.

    Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.

    It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.

    Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
    I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon" but I could see she was shaken.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hug it out: Michelle Obama embraces George W Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    krissywilson87 PlumRadio , 2016-09-26 08:30:48
    I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was. Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever was - and not a whole lot smarter.
    Chuck3 morbid , 2016-09-26 08:52:02
    Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black sites.

    Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous and murderous legacy.

    WillKnotTell seedeevee , 2016-09-26 10:54:34
    "Obama has been at war longer than Bush."

    Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct. The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops to ISIL.

    Kentrel Jaydee23 , 2016-09-26 12:07:52
    That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that Bush never did.
    1iJack , 2016-09-26 05:30:25
    Now get Hillary in there and the picture will be complete and could be titled...

    "the Globalists"

    Haytop , 2016-09-26 05:20:34
    war mongers converge?
    RedKrayola Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 06:44:56
    Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.' Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries throughout MENA.

    Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars, and that's just what he's delivered.

    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 07:45:30
    The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation to ensure the USA bomb
    Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
    at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.

    Each US leader will experiment with the
    possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
    by these sociopathic murderers.

    Gigi Trala La Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 08:25:25
    Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.

    Eisenhower, more right as the years pass.

    seedeevee Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 09:42:04
    We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.

    Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.

    ETC.

    RedKrayola ponderwell , 2016-09-26 11:04:39
    Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch as commander-in-chief.
    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 16:08:08
    Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
    violated and abused the trust of leaders and
    the public in many nations by misinforming,
    lying, and manipulative means to bomb
    a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
    have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for the next generation at minimum.

    'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals.

    montevideo , 2016-09-26 21:27:57
    This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of democracy could never be clearer.
    James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:54:13
    Bush 43 is arguably the most incompetent President ever. But no one would accuse him of being a bigot. Unlike Drumpf.
    Chuckman James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:58:45
    Oh boy, do you lack history.

    Bush had a disgraceful record in every sphere.

    It would take too long to detail.

    Read a book, such as the one by the late Molly Ivins.

    backscratch Chuckman , 2016-09-26 13:41:33
    Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
    OinkImSammy James Lohe , 2016-09-26 14:09:46
    I think they would because he was. The PNAC agenda did and does read like Mein Kampf.
    Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:35:47
    Well, he's much like her husband, isn't he?

    Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.

    Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene mass killing abroad.

    They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.

    The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities of money printed to keep the economy afloat.

    Chuckman Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:55:10
    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
    Chuckman djkbrown2001 , 2016-09-26 12:50:21
    Bush was never even a President.

    He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy who never did anything on his own.

    He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things for him.

    His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that Bush never be president.

    But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.

    The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.

    The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.

    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA

    Tim Caulfield , 2016-09-26 11:45:44
    "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
    Aldous0rwell , 2016-09-26 11:41:46
    "W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners, and kiss the asses of the 1%.
    robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 11:29:37
    I see Obama has vetoed the chance for relatives of the victims of 9/11 to take the Saudi government to court. Despicable man!
    hdmiin robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 13:21:18
    Maybe he didn't want to set a precedent - the relatives of dead Iraqis have an even better case for taking the US government to court.
    trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-09-26 10:56:31
    She is hugging him because he is voting for Clinton. Just annother of his long list of errors in judgement.
    Isaac_Blunt , 2016-09-26 10:33:25
    I Liked Dubbya. I've missed his amiable gaffs.

    "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur..."

    Chris Moody freepedestrian , 2016-09-26 11:12:44
    Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
    imperfetto , 2016-09-26 10:06:39
    Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies ) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes. Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this dictats.
    ALLisVanity , 2016-09-26 09:27:01
    If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
    Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 08:59:06
    I hope she washed her hands afterwards.
    SALSERO64 Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 09:22:17
    Why? They all are made of the same stuff.
    cvneuves , 2016-09-26 08:55:10
    I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective campaign against Trump!
    Ludek29 cvneuves , 2016-09-26 09:00:40
    Your Bush estimate is probably about 6 times lower its actual number.
    seedeevee Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 09:18:24
    and Obama has been at war longer. What a slacker!
    cvneuves Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 10:09:32
    John Tirman: Bush's War Dead: One Million , MIT, February 16, 2009.
    scss99 , 2016-09-26 08:33:42
    I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever since.

    Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.

    Cessminster SickSwan , 2016-09-26 08:34:04
    Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week - go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.

    Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign? Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.

    AlfredHerring , 2016-09-26 08:08:53
    It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
    domrice , 2016-09-26 08:06:40
    GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama. Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems is just noise.
    Christian Stevens , 2016-09-26 07:58:47
    The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them be truly trusted
    MereMortal , 2016-09-26 07:34:22
    Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing perceptions.
    Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job, and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
    Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
    So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen coronation.
    anonym101 , 2016-09-26 06:46:53
    Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] UKRAINE Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War

    Notable quotes:
    "... an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete! ..."
    www.freerepublic.com

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    Skip to comments.
    UKRAINE: Surrounded Donetsk- Ukraine General Staff applies experience of the Spanish Civil War
    http://hvylya.org/analytics/politics/okruzhennyiy-donetsk-genshtab-ukrainyi-primenyaet-opyit-grazhdanskoy-voynyi-v-ispanii.html ^ | 03.08.14, 18:06

    Posted on ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2014‎ ‎8‎:‎22‎:‎10‎ ‎PM by [email protected]

    Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle Donetsk is nearly complete!

    This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.

    Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built? After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet, which clearly outline the front line?

    First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme is not solid and dotted line .

    Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.

    Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional. On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland. And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver, and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor that will help determine the subsequent course of events.

    1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.

    But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.

    Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we came to this conclusion.

    One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years 1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also called the control zone - fronts.

    As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved its effectiveness.

    The Spanish Civil War

    Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.

    Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.

    General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!

    Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.

    Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents, getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative, the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good in its season!

    [Sep 24, 2016] US started Ukraine civil war

    Jan 30, 2015 | english.pravda.ru
    30.01.2015

    US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues

    It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.

    US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013

    Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech. You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:

    "...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization of the population triggering infighting.

    American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!

    Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue an investigation of this case."

    Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.

    Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan war.

    The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama, Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.

    The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.

    Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:

    "To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"

    That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.

    Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw

    Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.

    It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.

    Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America has forgotten its meaning.

    Xavier Lerma. Contact Xavier Lerma at [email protected]

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9-11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

    Impressive interview
    Notable quotes:
    "... That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows. ..."
    YouTube

    Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.

    Jeanne O'Mara 13 hours ago

    This retired fireman feels that it was a a controlled demolition. He has never heard of a high rise being brought down by a fire. There were other bldgs that were hit by debris from the burning towers. He was also suspicious that all the evidence from WTC 7 was taken away and sent to china.

    The crime scene should have protected but wasn't. He believe as many now do that t was a "false Flag" operation to get people all riled up so they could get into react. He saw molten LAVA like pockets of steel which is like what you see when a volcano explodes. It's called pyroclastic flow. Thermite, a very special explosive was found and it can only be made a very specialized labs like Los Alamos.

    The bush family has a very creepy history. Prescott Bush had holdings in a bank that funded the Nazis (Union Bank). It was seized by the CONGRESS. The Harrimans were also involved w this bank.

    It's also clear that Bush Sr had a role in JFK's assassination. JFK had asked A. Harriman to negotiate w Vietnam and Harriman cross out that part. This was treason.

    lora savage 1 week ago

    That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows.

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!

    www.youtube.com
    al murphy 1 year ago
    9/11 is a cover-up and World Trade Center 7 collapse is the smoking gun. Why is that so?? WTC-7 fully collapsed in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition. For 2.25 seconds it collapsed at freefall and National Institute of Standards and Technology now admits this. In order for it to freefall for 2.25 seconds you need a uniform gap of approx. 80ft free of any physical impediments (equivalent of blowing out 7 floors almost instantaneously).

    Fire is not magic and cannot do that and only can be precisely done through human intervention. It takes the prepositioning of demolition components that are finely timed throughout the building to accomplish this. WTC-7 had GOV agencies as part of its tenant (US Secret Service, CIA, IRS, DOD...) With tenants like that it is impossible for an outsider to get access to the building to preposition demolition components. Whoever did had to have their consent!

    [Sep 24, 2016] Obama, Our Peace President Turns Out to Be Rather War-Happy

    Notable quotes:
    "... That Makes Me Mad!, ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
    "... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
    "... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
    "... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
    "... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
    "... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
    "... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
    "... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
    "... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.alternet.org/TomDispatch

    Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing, ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made her mad.

    Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "

    Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with me as we go.

    Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the Oval Office pledging to work toward "a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!

    Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired fewer weapons in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now presiding over the early stages of a trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes, of course, before the inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes full-scale work on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option. Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the U.S. is proudly pioneering .

    And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.

    You must be kidding!

    Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact, it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed, al-Qaeda put to flight, and that was that , or so it then seemed.

    On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to the drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria which are loosing close to 25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution of the longest war in our history, the president who announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the U.S. Air Force . For that, B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking about " generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.

    Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his colleagues decide needs to die, American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be in the vicinity ). With its White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical" hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination, previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way of war that only seems to spread conflict further.

    You must be kidding!

    The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the New York Times reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel have only grown, including post-traumatic stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around, the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay for it.

    You must be kidding!

    Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a stunning figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small arms to tanks, combat aircraft, cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).

    Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its near monopoly on the global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of, especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling $38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade, the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)

    Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the classic revolver that "won the West."

    Put another way...

    You must be kidding!

    .... .... ....

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .
    Selected commnets (117 COMMENTS)
    Papachuck111 2 hours ago
    I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey, we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
    RadioUranus 2 hours ago
    It's been all downhill since "Brer Rabbit" Bush got into it with the Middle East "tar baby."
    Palimpsestuous 2 hours ago
    Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders.

    President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility for their part in destroying human civilization.

    "Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."

    The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.

    southvalley Palimpsestuous an hour ago
    Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
    Bill 2 hours ago
    No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
    Palimpsestuous Bill 2 hours ago
    I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.

    And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?

    AC3 3 hours ago
    These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you - it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native, tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy + how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.

    kyushuphil AC3 2 hours ago

    America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.

    It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.

    Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
    U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.

    The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives on their specializations.

    And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked" at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.

    Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden" -- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?

    nuanced 3 hours ago
    If only Obama had Trump's magic wand for getting things done.
    brucebennett 3 hours ago
    Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false.

    We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.

    When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
    Stein 2016!

    Bill denton310 2 hours ago
    Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.

    Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.

    For_Alternet 4 hours ago
    Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected.
    tio che 200YearOldJuniper 3 hours ago
    Murder is murder, obomber is as guilty as bush/cheney and their lackeys, rice and killary, of terrorist crimes against humanity!
    H. M. 4 hours ago
    Just think, this is the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama; now, just imagine the neoliberal neocon Hillary at the helm of the war machine!

    I'm afraid it will be check-mate for Humanity as we know it!

    MYR 5 hours ago
    The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
    Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.

    Sid Samsara 5 hours ago

    Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
    DHFabian 6 hours ago
    I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.

    Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed, in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to $10.)

    Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since.

    Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates, etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.

    This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.

    tio che Redacted 5 hours ago
    Dark days ahead for imperialist amerika; and sadly for the rest of the World; as the empire's death dealing is global!
    Christie 8 hours ago
    If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.

    The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire building.

    "Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya. Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary, whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.

    The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness) http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
    *****************
    The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:

    "The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world. It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.

    "The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.

    Recently Leaked Documents Confirm Clinton Haitian Gold Scheme | OpEdNews
    http://www.opednews.com/articl...

    NoldorElf 8 hours ago
    Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms.

    The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.

    If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.

    DHFabian NoldorElf 5 hours ago
    What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is a dismal failure.

    The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said. Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.

    kyushuphil DHFabian 2 hours ago
    True, so onerously true what you say, DH.

    Does it happen by accident, when our tenured classes have stripped away the humanities from all, guaranteeing what you term narrow discussion?

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road.

    Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added more.

    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    Clinton and Kerry voted to invade Iraq and Obama rewards them with the Sec State jobs.
    DHFabian Lord Dude 5 hours ago
    And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign, to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support for the right wing agenda.

    Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around, don't ask questions, don't think.

    Redacted Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    And now she will be rewarded by the MIC and neocons with the ultimate prize - the white house.
    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now she's being rewarded. SMH.

    Redacted Lord Dude 7 hours ago

    She had no wish to filibuster this anymore than the Trojan horse Bernie Sanders wanted to filibuster her drone attacks later on.
    Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    He will be the first president to have been at war for two complete terms.

    And he went into Syria and Libya without permission of Congress. Not even W did that.

    taosword 8 hours ago
    Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last 7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
    avelna 9 hours ago
    Or, to put it more succinctly...We're f**cked. The whole world.
    southvalley 9 hours ago
    Classic "We must destroy the world in order to save it"
    nineteen50 9 hours ago
    Vote Hillary for more of the same only "muscled up"
    Hometalk222 10 hours ago
    How did an article about Obama and nuclear weapons , turn into a hit piece on D Trump??? Oh yeah, this is Alternet.
    smkngman3 10 hours ago
    Obama learned from the Clintons on how to get those "Foundation" checks rolling in.
    David Shaw Jr 10 hours ago
    His "peace prize" should be repossessed.

    [Sep 21, 2016] An interesting view on Russian intelligencia by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during perestroika in 1991

    The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə]) is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists, and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents of the intelligentsia.
    Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress, but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
    en.wikipedia.org

    If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to do it.

    But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society, which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesnt play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the smartest person in the room

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Some animals are more equal than others.

    Sep 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    hedgeless_horseman BuddyEffed Sep 17, 2016 10:58 AM

    Kirby declined to answer whether Israel should face the same treatment
    as Iran and North Korea – both of which have been sanctioned for alleged
    or actual violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    ROZETKA - Результаты поиска телефон mini-SIM Поиск

    [Sep 17, 2016] How the Obsession With American Leadership Warps Foreign Policy Analysis The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
    "... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
    "... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
    "... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
    "... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Ben Denison criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:

    When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.

    The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.

    When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's "failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict. Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    "At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them."

    It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.

    Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.

    Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know.

    bt , says: September 16, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again.

    Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right.

    It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends.

    let johnny come marching home , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:54 pm
    "one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave."

    It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and intervening.

    We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.

    The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt, half-educated hacks and incompetents.

    [Sep 16, 2016] More Passwords, Please: 98 Million Leaked From 2012 Breach Of 'Russia's Yahoo'

    Sep 16, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (arstechnica.com) 23 Posted by manishs on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @02:00PM from the security-woes dept. Sean Gallagher, writing for ArsTechnica: Another major site breach from four years ago has resurfaced. Today, LeakedSource revealed that it had received a copy of a February 2012 dump of the user database of Rambler.ru , a Russian search, news, and e-mail portal site that closely mirrors the functionality of Yahoo. The dump included usernames, passwords, and ICQ instant messaging accounts for over 98 million users. And while previous breaches uncovered by LeakedSource this year had at least some encryption of passwords, the Rambler.ru database stored user passwords in plain text -- meaning that whoever breached the database instantly had access to the e-mail accounts of all of Rambler.ru's users. The breach is the latest in a series of "mega-breaches" that LeakedSource says it is processing for release. Rambler isn't the only Russian site that has been caught storing unencrpyted passwords by hackers. In June, a hacker offered for sale the entire user database of the Russian-language social networking site VK.com (formerly VKontakte) from a breach that took place in late 2012 or early 2013; that database also included unencrypted user passwords, as ZDNet's Zach Whittaker reported.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2008 financial crisis

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L

    "Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2007-2008 financial crisis" [International Business Times]. Why now? Liz edging her hat toward the ring if Clinton comes up lame?

    I can see two possible interpretations for this.

    First, as much as I hate to draw the analogy, she could be positioning herself to take the reigns after a loss in the way that Richard Nixon, Paul Ryan, and later Bill Clinton did. Richard Nixon sat back and concentrated on building up credibility as Barry Goldwater melted down and then quietly stepped in to take over the party after the loss to set up his eventual run. Paul Ryan quietly permitted or perhaps aided the coup against Boehner. And Bill Clinton, through the DLC teed up his control of the party after Dukakis lost.

    Second, with Wells-Fargo and bank fraud once again in the news she could be working to keep prior decisions current both to force better action this time or to nudge the Clinton and Trump into making promises of stronger action in the future.

    Lambert Strether Post author

    It seems to me that both those objectives would be served by continuing to hammer on Wells Fargo, so the question "Why now?" isn't really answered in your comment.

    But if you wanted to take out an option on running a full-throated populist campaign - and throwing bankers in jail would be wildly popular across the entire political spectrum (except Clinton's 10%-ers on up) - in the unhappy event that the party's candidate came up lame, then calling for an account of regulatory decision making in 2009 would be one way to signal that. Note also that would call Obama's "legacy" into question, too; the whole "stand between you and the pitchforks" thing. This is a big deal.

    [Sep 15, 2016] American Antitrust Is Having a Moment: Some Reactions to Commissioner Ohlhausen's Recent Views

    Sep 14, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris Sagers at ProMarket:
    American Antitrust Is Having a Moment: Some Reactions to Commissioner Ohlhausen's Recent Views : Over the summer, Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen took me and several others to task in a speech , subsequently published as a journal article ... The theme we'd all written about is whether we in the United States have a "monopoly problem," and whether federal policy should try to do something about it. ...

    Commissioner Ohlhausen had some pretty strong words. ... Specifically, she implies a very strong presumption against public interference in private markets, as indicated by her argument that there is not yet sufficient evidence that we have a monopoly problem. The argument seems to be that we must wait until we are very, very sure, beyond any reasonable econometric doubt, apparently, that there's something wrong before we step in. ...

    She is mistaken, and she ignores roughly a library-full of well-known..., sophisticated empirical work. ...

    In the end, the irony of these remarks is captured in this point: Commissioner Ohlhausen is pretty witheringly dismissive of a certain kind of evidence of market power, and implies that it would not support increased enforcement unless it can overcome a high methodological bar. But for her own countervailing evidence that in fact American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."

    In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong that evidence of harm must meet the most exacting standards of social science. To prove that markets are in fact competitive, however, needs nothing more than seat-of-the-pants anecdotes. Again, I mean no disrespect, and I think we have an honest difference of opinion. But this stance is not social science, and it is not good, empirically founded public policy. It is just ideology. ...

    It's definitely true that the agencies have brought a bunch of challenges to a bunch of nasty mergers, and perhaps total enforcement numbers have gone up a bit. But that is because we are in the midst of a merger wave in which parties have been proposing breathtakingly massive, overwhelmingly consolidating horizontal deals. While there is a track record to be proud of in the administration's enforcement, especially, as the commissioner observes, in the Commission's campaign against hospital mergers, reverse-payment deals, SEP problems, and patent trolls, and who knows how many other matters, the fact remains that by and large the administration has mostly not taken action that any administration would not have taken, including the Reagan and both Bush administrations. ...

    DrDick : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:13 AM

    If we were actually serious about antitrust, which we very much should be, we would not only block most of these mergers, but break up many of existing behemoths (like the big banks, the media giants, Comcast, and many others).
    pgl -> DrDick... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    I'm all for breaking up the behemoths when they are indeed stifling competition. The Reagan Revolution to anti-trust was based on a contention that some mergers were about efficiency effects. I think this argument is sometimes overblown but it is not per se false. I do object (see below) to the weak evidence that goes like this. Collective shareholder value rose so ergo the merger is about efficiency effects. Anyone who argues that (see Don Luskin and the premium ice cream proposed merger) is not very bright.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:49 AM
    Exactly. Corporations being able to suck more profit out of the costumers (and as a result share prices rising) is the proof that anti-trust has failed. In a fully functional competitive market companies do not make much profit.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    Accounting profits? Maybe you should read that paper by the commissioner as she makes a very clear statement about what accounting profit would look like in a competitive market. And it is not zero. Return to capital? Hello?
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM
    No if it was zero the whole thing breaks down. However, a small return on capital is an indication that companies are forced to cut prices because of competition- and that is a healthy market. So yes there is (some but) not much profit in a fully functional competitive market.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Let's define "small return". Standard financial economics puts this at the risk-free rate plus a premium for bearing systematic risk. OK - the risk-free return now is quite small. Say 2%. But if the risk premium is say 4%, then we are talking about a 6% expected return to assets. If that is what you mean by small - cool.

    Of course I have seen a lot of "professionals" argue for much higher returns. Of course these professionals would flunk a Finance 101 class.

    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM
    I don't think the risk premium needs to be more than about 2% unless/until the economy enter a phase where demand outstrips supply (and more investment money needs to be attracted). If there is a glut of investment money then the price of it (=risk free returns) should go down.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 02:05 PM
    This is the kind of thinking that got Hassett and Glassman to tell us about DOW 36000. Some people overestimate the risk premium but 2% is what a regulated utility or a leasing company gets. And neither bears commercial risk. Dude - you can make up whatever number your heart desires but there is market evidence on these things.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    Exactly - even those are hugely overcompensated for this supposed risk.
    Gibbon1 -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 04:14 PM
    Ability to better suck profit out of a captive base of customers is an efficiency of a sort. Instead of investing in risky new business processes or technologies one merely has to buy out your competitors. This is practically risk free.
    pgl : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:15 AM
    A comment about this:

    "Though she says that "[e]fficiencies are real"-citing no evidence for it in a speech critical of everyone else for failure to supply evidence-there is in fact no meaningful proof that consolidation generates social benefits. Especially in the case of mergers, a large and sophisticated empirical literature has been hunting for decades for evidence that mergers produce "efficiencies" or other benefits. The evidence has not been found. At least with respect to deals among publicly traded firms, the evidence tends to suggest that mergers do no good on average for shareholders of either acquiring or target firms, and if there were some efficiencies or larger social benefits, they should be measurable as benefits to shareholders. The empirical evidence has therefore confirmed the popular wisdom shared on Wall Street for years-that all this activity is not serving any good social purpose, though it might be helping executives and their bankers quite a lot."

    The conservative (Reagan) approach to anti-trust did indeed ask DOJ and FTC to consider whether the merger was about beneficial efficiency effects v. anti-competitive effects. But let's suppose two firms merged and their collective value did rise benefiting shareholders. That does not prove the efficiency effects dominate. No – mergers that lead to less competition will often raise shareholder value even if there are no efficiency effects. Those mergers should be disallowed.

    kurt : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Proof of Monopoly Power - Verizon and ATT's pricing and apparent lack of any interest in maintaining or even knowing where their physical plant is installed. Also - see directTV's recent price increases.
    pgl -> kurt... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:07 PM
    Can you hear me now? Oh wait - the Verizon dude now works for Sprint.
    El Epicúreo Del Taco : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."

    In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong
    "

    You are assumed properly competing until proved monopoly-based. The burden of proof is on the victims. Tell me something!

    Does the government always appear as crystal clear as the mirror of Alice? When we look at local, county, state, and federal rulers, do we always see ourselves? Our own bias? Our own agenda? The government apes its voters.

    Do you see how today's polity is begging for less competition? Less free trade from our trading partners? Do you see how we want to make a monopoly out of America? Build a fence around it so that nobody is allowed to buy anything from anyone other than our monopoly?

    " We have identified the enemy, ourselves. " ~~Pogo~

    DeDude : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    Yes you need at least a dozen independent businesses delivering the same (substitutable) products to ensure that there is indeed a competitive market that will not be gamed against the consumers. This is not just needed to ensure that consumers will be offered a fair price, but also to ensure that companies will be forced to continue to innovate and offer better and better products. The oversight of mergers has been a scandal and needs to be tightened by new laws. Obviously we have to make the "dozen rule" a law rather than just common sense guidance.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:10 PM
    The dozen rule? Where did that come from? Depends on the market but I would hope we have more than 12 suppliers of beer. BTW - it would be nice to have 12 health insurance companies but we could break up this oligopoly with such one more - the government aka the public option.
    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:34 PM
    Yes some products can benefit from more variation, but at least with 12 suppliers you would not have anybody able to corner the market. The dozen rule is mine, that is how I get my eggs. If Ohlhausen can just make it up - so can I.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    Do you remember the 1970's? Something called OPEC? But yea - I buy my eggs by the dozen too.
    pgl -> DeDude... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    Speaking of breakfast, consider the maple syrup cartel:

    http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/maple-syrup-cartel

    DeDude -> pgl... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    Yes cartels (regardless of number of members) also have to be broken up - for markets and capitalism to work properly.
    Tom aka Rusty : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 12:59 PM
    The FTC has ignored a many major health care mergers but has gone litigation guns a blazin' into small mergers in such less-than-major metro centers as Moscow Idaho and Toledo Ohio.

    Is there a "too big to litigate" standard?

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 02:06 PM
    Rusty calling for rational regulation as in the FTC doing its job. Stop the presses!
    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to pgl... , Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 04:53 AM
    I'm just asking for coherent policy, something often missing from the Obama administration.
    Anon : , Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 08:30 PM
    The sad fact is that the right-wing Law and Economics scholars have literally been trained to believe that the only correct null hypothesis is "free markets are good". When the null is not rejected with a 95% confidence interval, they actually think they've won the argument, while you're sitting there scratching your head saying, but when the null hypothesis is "free markets are bad", we can't reject that either. I've never seen logic get much traction with this crowd, because they are literally willing to tell you that economics demonstrates that "free markets are good", so that's the correct null.

    It's very sad, but also very common when talking to lawyers. In fact, I often wonder whether the right-wing didn't create the "Law and Economics" movement in order to slow the exposure of the legal profession to the actual tools of modern economic analysis.

    reason : , -1
    It would be a start if we would simply stop seeing hostile takeovers as something positive (you know ex-ante efficiency improvements) and start seeing them for the interference in natural selection that they actually are (no 40-40 foresight exists).

    [Sep 15, 2016] Whats Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ... ..."
    "... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
    "... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
    "... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
    "... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html ..."
    "... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
    "... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
    "... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
    "... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade. ..."
    "... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
    "... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
    "... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
    "... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget. ..."
    "... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
    "... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
    "... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
    "... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
    "... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
    "... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
    "... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe. ..."
    Apr 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Larry Summers:
    What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been a pillar of the international order. ...

    This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...

    One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...

    Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...

    Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Tom aka Rusty : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:15 AM
    Is Summers really this naive?
    Jedgar Mihelic : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:21 AM
    I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
    pgl -> Jedgar Mihelic ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:28 AM
    Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
    pgl : Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists - for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.

    What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.

    Peter -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:12 AM
    The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
    likbez -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 04:48 PM
    pgl,

    And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html

    === quote ===

    One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape of external debt.

    When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.

    International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.

    In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.

    The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country, nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few, on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.

    Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level. And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved, the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private debt.

    Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.

    The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.

    Kgaard : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious, planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
    anne -> Kgaard... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:44 AM
    There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable, but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?

    Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our" homogeneity?

    I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?

    Kgaard -> anne... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....

    Also ... What is your definition of prejudice?

    Benedict@Large -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other trade is regulated trade.

    Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is, in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet.

    Has anyone been trying to hustle the wallets of the people who became ISIS? Oh please. That's a stupid question to even ask.

    So is free trade, as in regulated trade that is called the opposite of what it is, responsible for ISIS? Of course it is.

    Ben Groves -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM
    ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.

    It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated. My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".

    This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me feel safe".

    Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.

    To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something you should not forget.

    DrDick : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
    pgl -> DrDick ... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    OK - some substance finally. TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich.
    DrDick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
    Dan Kervick -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:33 PM
    This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade" agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries.
    Denis Drew : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 07:38 AM
    " The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "

    " ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ... "

    +1

    Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then (and only then) support it externally across the world.

    Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.

    A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.

    Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get support for actions) ever gets done.

    Peter : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 08:31 AM
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/new_path_forward/

    I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.

    by Jared Bernstein

    April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am

    "...

    Here's Larry's view of the way forward:

    "The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.

    Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""

    It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.

    It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both here and abroad."

    anne : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 09:12 AM
    "What's Behind The Revolt Against Global Integration?" -- Washington Post editors title.

    "Global trade should be remade from the bottom up" -- Lawrence Summers title.

    I find the difference in titles important in showing just how slanted Washington Post editors are.

    Longtooth : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM
    Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate.
    pgl -> Longtooth... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 01:46 PM
    Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little. We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about the compensation principle. Turn the table!
    kthomas -> pgl... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:01 PM
    Not being rude, but I fail to understand your response.

    AFL-CIO? turn the table?

    Peter -> kthomas... , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:51 PM
    It's okay. He's drunk again.
    New Deal democrat : , Monday, April 11, 2016 at 03:07 PM
    "consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " -- "The Great Illusion" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion )
    That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.

    Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.

    George H. Blackford :
    Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world: http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm

    The export-led growth model that began in the 1990s seriously exacerbated this problem as it proved to be unsustainable: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income: http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm

    This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm

    [Sep 15, 2016] On Views Of The War On Syria by Debs is Dead>

    A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
    "... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
    "... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
    "... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
    "... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
    "... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
    "... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
    "... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
    "... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
    "... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
    "... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
    "... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
    "... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
    "... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
    "... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
    "... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
    "... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
    "... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
    "... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
    "... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
    "... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
    "... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
    "... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
    "... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
    "... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
    "... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
    "... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
    "... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
    "... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
    "... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
    "... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
    "... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
    "... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
    "... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
    "... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
    "... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
    "... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
    "... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
    "... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
    "... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
    "... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
    "... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
    "... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
    "... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
    "... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
    "... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
    "... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
    "... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
    "... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
    "... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
    "... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
    "... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
    "... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
    "... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
    "... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
    "... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
    "... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
    "... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
    "... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
    "... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
    "... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
    "... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
    "... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
    "... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
    "... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    lifted from a comment

    It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't so serious - Zionist.

    1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares wanting and discards.

    2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue - mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.

    3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.

    4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

    5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus. All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias and the FSA.

    When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were a lot smarter.

    On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty oppression by assholes any longer.

    6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached.

    I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division - if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded it.

    I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.

    As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.

    The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:

    If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?

    Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM | Permalink

    papa | Sep 12, 2016 3:51:57 AM | 1
    Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling, i see exactly the same.

    This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.

    lemur | Sep 12, 2016 4:30:41 AM | 2
    you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms.

    The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers)))

    ash123 | Sep 12, 2016 5:43:53 AM | 3
    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country.

    Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 5:47:26 AM | 4

    Debsisdead says:

    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago

    no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...

    when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights.

    so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.

    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 6:04:27 AM | 5
    This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s.

    Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012 (below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11 of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The Hague.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Formerly T-Bear | Sep 12, 2016 6:23:51 AM | 6
    |~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult to read.

    Reference Debsisdead comment:

    Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.

    Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas (neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously been co-opted).

    Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence involved.

    Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism; manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions that comprise spectrums.

    Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist, an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.

    I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war.

    The opinions expressed are my own.

    falcemartello | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:48 AM | 7
    Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education , public services.
    Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
    Mikael | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:56 AM | 8
    I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon. My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year old. I call major bullshit on your piece.
    Demeter | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:26 AM | 9
    If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering.

    What do you think would have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military field).

    I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship? Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.

    And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is why.

    And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years, and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.

    I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil, one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.

    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.

    Here is racism for you debsisdead.

    AtaBrit | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:59 AM | 10
    Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they lack a time frame.
    The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.

    An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.

    DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually being said.

    Cresty | Sep 12, 2016 8:41:04 AM | 12
    The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.

    You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country. They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account and your bold anti racism

    Northern Observer | Sep 12, 2016 8:52:18 AM | 14
    Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution.
    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 9:22:01 AM | 15
    Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated
    Jackrabbit | Sep 12, 2016 10:06:55 AM | 17
    Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon.

    Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" .

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:10:18 AM | 18
    "If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?" Passive-aggressive much?

    The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.

    TG | Sep 12, 2016 10:22:59 AM | 20
    "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.

    It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had.

    No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the weather.

    "The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.

    Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support, the result is always bad.

    Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this deserves mention?

    Diana | Sep 12, 2016 10:23:43 AM | 21
    Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school "oppression" analysis.
    juliania | Sep 12, 2016 10:26:32 AM | 22
    Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."

    I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm for diplomatic relations.

    I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts. But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the 9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.

    Can we please stop doing this?

    Wizzy | Sep 12, 2016 10:35:49 AM | 23
    After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic, the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.

    And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
    Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever, waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:38:01 AM | 24
    "The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."

    Cite?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 10:58:51 AM | 25
    DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model of virtue."

    It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria.

    The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem.

    Krollchem | Sep 12, 2016 11:35:06 AM | 28
    @ rg the lg 33

    Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.

    paul | Sep 12, 2016 11:40:49 AM | 29
    Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.

    So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms. Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered with honor as Chavez is.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 12:16:07 PM | 33
    It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.

    Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says @25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.

    Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
    Things either are what they appear to be;
    or they neither are, nor appear to be;
    or they are, and do not appear to be;
    or they are not, and yet appear to be.
    Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.

    ~Epictetus

    Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of identification.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 12:54:18 PM | 36
    Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?

    It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.

    No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse. Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya, except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).

    I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of, he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition' would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me. If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was. It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.

    I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored maybe id see your point.

    Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC. I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.

    And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling. It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that. At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent and anti democratic.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 1:01:58 PM | 37
    QUICK DOUBLE POST

    An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder how that fits in with OPs post.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2016 1:02:25 PM | 38
    What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good". But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned AmeriKKKa's concern.

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 1:07:59 PM | 39
    @Shh, since you're so conveniently ensconced above the fray, perhaps you can see something we "nattering fuck wits" can't. Do tell.
    Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 12, 2016 1:47:35 PM | 40
    Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone else's shoes to understand their walk in life?

    In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the world with his/her drivel.

    To make it as concise as possible:

    What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine, Turkey and Africa as a whole.

    In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench of obfuscation.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 2:02:43 PM | 41
    @47 Hoarsewhisperer

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that is the western MSM.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 3:26:34 PM | 43
    It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing. In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war; but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.

    Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.

    The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.

    I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?] i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
    Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.

    Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless, despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.

    I call into question these two points:

    (1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected, misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit, to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities against the defenseless? What is the point?
    (2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.

    There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 4:01:33 PM | 46
    I very much agree with what Demeter wrote @ 14:
    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
    Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
    Kuma | Sep 12, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 47
    @9
    I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it.

    "Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"

    American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things.

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:11:58 PM | 48
    I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he is wrong. His remarks are out of date.

    No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive al-Qa'ida style view.

    The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported fascists.

    The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 4:18:12 PM | 50
    james says:

    must be a '''slow''' news day...

    yeah, did you read that the American Imperium bombed 6 Muslim countries last Saturday?

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:51:42 PM | 51
    Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
    The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar. Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian peace.
    fast freddy | Sep 12, 2016 4:53:30 PM | 52
    The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news.

    The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein.

    Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates and Manifest Destiny are problematic.

    Curtis | Sep 12, 2016 7:22:18 PM | 55
    I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails but what of the minority?
    BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism? In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US, look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
    Jen | Sep 12, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 57
    Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side or another.

    I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.

    I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know.

    Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.

    But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88% of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries) and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April 2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.

    The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 8:03:18 PM | 59
    Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name' the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that is the problem.

    It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 8:28:41 PM | 60
    fairleft, @75

    When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism, but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.

    Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".

    Kalen | Sep 12, 2016 8:31:13 PM | 61
    They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle instigated by US imperial delusions.

    But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because, living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with, so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were pampered by western elites.

    Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.

    Another interesting element that was touched upon is attitude to Israel and its US perceived role, but for that one needs deeper background starting from before 1948.
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/history-revisited/

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 8:42:29 PM | 62
    I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all.

    He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well.

    Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact.

    Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would be invincible.

    redrooster | Sep 12, 2016 9:01:21 PM | 63
    Dear Debs is Dead,

    you wrote:

    "This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."

    Question to you:

    if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.

    If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help.

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 10:00:23 PM | 65
    #46 FecklessLeft

    And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire Syrian war.

    If Assad goes:

    1. Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
    2. Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?

    I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty level question, although it feels like a $64k one.

    Bill Hicks | Sep 12, 2016 10:31:21 PM | 66
    Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance, her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard, Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande, etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
    james | Sep 12, 2016 11:09:45 PM | 67
    @ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say 'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless, killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
    Jen | Sep 13, 2016 1:17:04 AM | 71
    OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels".
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097

    And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari

    the pair | Sep 13, 2016 2:12:09 AM | 72
    not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.

    of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).

    i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is.

    and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice. just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.

    [also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]

    as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist", be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?

    whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.

    bigmango | Sep 13, 2016 2:20:54 AM | 73
    I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still, I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.

    Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors.

    Harry | Sep 13, 2016 2:28:44 AM | 74
    The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).

    The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 13, 2016 3:11:57 AM | 77
    The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below. I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this site in the first place.

    Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor of ways, is really disheartening.

    There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.

    WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/05/syria-the-feckless-left-.html

    Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
    The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

    As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.

    I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.

    And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.

    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2016 5:07:06 AM | 80
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    This obviously is not the case. A recent take of the BBC with some real information on the realities of the war .

    "We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

    "All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

    "I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2016 5:18:29 AM | 81
    ...
    .. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter.
    ...
    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...

    Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
    Did you forget?
    Did you not know?
    Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?

    AtaBrit | Sep 13, 2016 5:24:44 AM | 82
    @TG | 20

    "It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger ..."
    And yet you fail to mention the Muslim Brotherhood or the Turkish water wars ...

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 6:34:41 AM | 84
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-idUSKCN11J0EY

    Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.

    The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire was holding at the start of its second day.

    Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside of Quneitra province.

    The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.

    The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after the Israeli attack.

    Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."

    The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 9:33:38 AM | 89
    Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. T

    here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.

    Only the Saudis, or pushers of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's crusade.

    brian | Sep 13, 2016 9:55:45 AM | 90
    president Assad is a 'decent ruler' and thats the view of most syrians
    papillonweb | Sep 13, 2016 10:01:56 AM | 92
    Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians.

    There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their armaments while providing political cover.

    I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.

    TheRealDonald | Sep 13, 2016 10:08:27 AM | 93
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/un-condemns-assad-syria-abuse_us_57d7c49ce4b0fbd4b7bb50d8?section=&

    Now look what you've done, Debs.

    On to Sebastopol for the One Party!

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 10:25:10 AM | 94
    OT, but that was an interesting Sunni Islam conference in Grozny , because it excluded and then 'excommunicated' Salafism and Wahabbism. Amazing!

    "All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community. This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 11:04:04 AM | 96
    Josh Landis Syria Comment
    There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true.
    Noirette | Sep 13, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 99
    Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist' to a 'market' economy. Notes.

    > a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)

    > b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute for 'growing employment..'

    *opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)

    So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)

    1. all nos off the top of my head.

    2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate

    2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images and 'supporters' etc.

    http://www.planning.gov.sy/index.php?page=show&ex=2&dir=docs&lang=2&ser=2&cat=172&

    [Sep 14, 2016] the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same. ..."
    "... The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    JSM September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    No offense is meant but fewer articles from Ms. Scofield, please, with transparent, dubious, questionable, or propagandistic angles. The article 'How building design changed after 9/11' has been written annually for fifteen years.

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years. "

    It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same.

    This would also go for any articles entitled 'How the US Can Win the War in Syria' in which no objectives are articulated, non-evidential articles entitled 'U.S. Could Pay a High Price for Suing the Saudis,' any more New Yorker articles, the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities, about 'Trump and the Truth', e.g. 'The Unemployment Rate Hoax,' etc. I'm sure posting links is largely a thankless job, but if I wanted to I could turn on CNN and 'learn' these very things.

    Jess , September 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years."

    Hate to break it to you, but earthquake forces - seismic events - are considerably different than thermal events. Granted, fire often erupt as a result of severed gas and electric lines caused by an earthquake, but an earthquake is a brief, violent, hard shaking or rolling. A high-rise fire of sustained intensity sits in one place and does its work within a confined setting. In the case of the multiple floors damaged by the impact of the planes in 9-11, that confined setting bore a striking resemblance to a combination blast furnace and chimney. (People tend to forget that skyscrapers tend to create their own wind patterns, in this case well over 500 feet high. Just like air being pumped into a fire by a bellows.

    human -> Jess , September 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    The second order partial differentiation equation* governing structure responding during a dynamic event like an earthquakes shows that the force on the structure is related to its mass.

    The heavier a structure, the bigger force it is subjected to, going through the same quake.

    The force of an impacting plane is same regardless of the building size, all else being equal.

    *(mass x acceleration) + (damping coefficient x velocity) + (stiffness modulus x displacement) = zero.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Myth of American Retreat by William Ruger

    Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality. Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With far reaching consequences.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
    "... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
    "... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
    "... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
    "... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Retreat and Its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the Problem of World Order , Robert J. Lieber, Cambridge University Press, 152 pages

    The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active, deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.

    Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.

    Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority, are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama, "Don't do stupid shit."

    And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences , thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled. He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance of aggressive American global leadership.

    Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news. More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.

    ♦♦♦

    Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series, The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of "preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing a number of different challenges.

    Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad" as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on relationships with allies."

    The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S. foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book, at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.

    As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy. Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described, have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East." He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise of ISIS and Iran.

    Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed, he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible. Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.

    In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S. has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.

    Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests and homeland security."

    ♦♦♦

    Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that incentivize free-riding.

    Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S. continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.

    Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly, Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism. But neither make for a policy of retreat.

    Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.

    And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?

    Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place. The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

    Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders.

    William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Obama's Futile Efforts at 'Reassuring' Bad Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
    "... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The U.S. is preparing to increase the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy client:

    President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38 billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S. history.

    But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest pro-Israel critics?

    Not a chance.

    Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain.

    It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have never accepted and will never accept that he is actually "pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region. There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the U.S.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Bill Black The Clintons Have Not Changed

    Notable quotes:
    "... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
    "... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
    "... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
    "... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
    "... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
    "... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
    "... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
    "... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
    Mar 04, 2016 | naked capitalism

    Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.

    ...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is "partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 4:03 am

    HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the Democratic nominee.

    Chris A , March 4, 2016 at 6:27 am

    From wsws.org:

    "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.

    Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond.

    Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"

    From Bill Van Auken/Wsws.org

    RP , March 4, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Honduras isn't exactly a feather in her cap either

    KYrocky , March 4, 2016 at 9:19 am

    The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy, as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what should be the public sphere of our government.

    Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse.

    MIchael C. , March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

    The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill, grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way election time.

    Deloss Brown , March 4, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look, for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?

    John , March 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Trump probably left of Clinton in many ways. Probably less corrupt.

    jrs , March 4, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.

    I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card to justify their vote.

    Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.

    I do not know how she can win if she loses Ohio.

    perpetualWAR , March 4, 2016 at 11:03 am

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I will vote Republican.

    hreik , March 4, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I'll write in Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Excellent article. I hope Sanders will offer Bill Black a job in his administration. I've noticed that Black was often on panels held by Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of doing business.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    thesaker.is

    T1 on October 14, 2015 · at 9:04 pm UTC

    I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?

    Little things like that make me suspicious.

    Peter, on October 14, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC

    That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.

    I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.

    So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.

    According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.

    But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.

    In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.

    [Sep 11, 2016] The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

    Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social order and try to take precautions?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
    "... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
    "... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
    "... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
    "... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
    "... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
    "... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
    "... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
    "... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
    "... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
    "... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
    "... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
    "... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
    "... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
    "... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
    Sep 15, 2012 | WashingtonsBlog

    ... ... ...

    What Do the Experts Say?

    What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

    Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

    The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

    Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

    In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

    Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

    How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

    ***

    Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

    Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

    For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .

    We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

    The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

    Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

    The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

    It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

    It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

    The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

    The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

    Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):

    Fish In a Barrel

    Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


    The facts are a wee bit different:

    Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

    Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .

    The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

    "Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

    This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

    murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
    In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

    The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.

    Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

    It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

    Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago

    Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

    JusticeFor911 > Pooua

    Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.

    I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

    Pooua > JusticeFor911

    If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

    No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

    IBSHILLIN > Pooua

    Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

    All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

    This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

    Pooua > IBSHILLIN

    I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

    No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

    Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

    ihaveabrain > Pooua

    explain this? You are smarter than these experts? http://www.hulu.com/watch/4120...

    NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

    Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago

    You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

    NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

    linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report

    You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

    You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

    Pooua > linked1

    I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

    If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".

    How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

    Pooua > mulegino1

    I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.

    Thumbnail

    There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

    The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

    There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

    Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago

    It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

    Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago

    Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago

    The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

    The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

    What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

    Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics

    Notable quotes:
    "... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill , August 12, 2016 at 4:10 pm
    Apparently the Russian government has decided to drop Kudrin type monetarist economics http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/02/putin-nyet-to-neo-liberals-da-to-national-development/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List

    I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering over the last 200 years.

    marknesop , August 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia."

    This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western voice stilled.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europes poorest country

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
    "... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
    "... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
    "... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    Wow; there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily, the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension of curiosity.

    "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.

    "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."

    And it's starting to have an effect.

    "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.

    Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."

    And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Is Hillary a Sociopath

    This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
    "... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
    "... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
    "... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
    "... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    Apr 01, 2008 | dailykos.com

    Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly.

    She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement as for political gain.

    Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v. set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality, enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."

    What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work. Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled me.

    In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.

    Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she

    1. "landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
    2. "helped bring peace to Ireland"
    3. "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"

    The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch, with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."

    It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.

    Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as the NAFTA waffler.

    Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.

    Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq.

    Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.

    In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone.

    More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises

    [Sep 10, 2016] Oil and gas crunch pushes Russia closer to fiscal crisis

    It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after they are published.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
    "... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
    "... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
    "... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
    "... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
    "... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
    "... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
    "... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
    "... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
    "... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
    "... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
    "... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
    Jul 23, 2015 | Telegraph

    Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.

    Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.

    "We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.

    "Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."

    A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt," said Mr Mitov.

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding from the central bank.

    Dave Hanson

    For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism. Clever journalism.

    steph borne

    jezzam steph borne •a day ago

    ''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.'' http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
    .
    jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
    but it is ''Perceptions''???
    ''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
    Just more nonsense from Jezzam

    soton

    my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day, from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their properties plunge

    Rosbif2

    So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and menace Europe?
    It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each other & drown even faster
    AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles

    giltedged

    This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen

    What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"

    Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar, that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European, that his own country survives because of London property sales

    Richard N

    And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate situation of Russia!

    Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not own'.

    I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression' in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.

    Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all - but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists, leaving then
    China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists' control.

    Richard N > jezzam • a day ago

    If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA Mr. Colby said.

    He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you.

    steph borne

    ''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''

    01 Jun 2015

    ''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative growth
    forecast''

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

    steph borne > TheBoggart

    Do you understand what a trade surplus is?

    Russia recorded a trade surplus of 15309 USD Million in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Halou > steph borne

    Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy) people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services and restoring economic balance.

    I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience at it.

    Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th century means to them, you might be surprised.

    steph borne > Halou

    Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets leaving the country is a good thing....

    Strange that the Germans don't agree --

    ''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015. Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of 2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction

    steph borne

    02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
    Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html

    01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
    cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html

    24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html

    22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
    Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
    .
    Still going!!!

    Graham Milne

    Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is the UK which is toast, not Russia.

    billsimpson > Graham Milne

    Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur, or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
    The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
    Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.

    Sal20111

    Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas. They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.

    Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether there is much of a small to medium business culture.

    With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public, particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.

    rob22

    Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank.

    Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

    A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the region (see new American century doc)

    Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations oil revenue went to wall st and everything else

    If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars and spend in rubles.

    This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.

    Londonmaxwell

    Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis", "plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants, crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.

    Ambrose misses some key points.

    Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game is just beginning.

    energman58 > Londonmaxwell

    Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to see their assets wither away...

    Londonmaxwell > energman58

    Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point. If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private) is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't see the wheels falling off anytime soon.

    AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the mark.

    steph borne

    Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
    Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.

    midnightrambler

    Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles such as this one.

    So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting involved in themselves

    snotcricket

    It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question the obvious US gov line in such articles.

    Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.

    Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin this would have been the outcome.

    With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became a damn sight worse after the imposition.

    The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies (the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.

    This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time & money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any economy.

    Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes & the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be a can yet to be kicked down the road.

    Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.

    steph borne

    If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more downward pressure on the oil price! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help clinching Iran deal

    oleteo

    Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!" The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy are greatly exaggerated.

    steph borne

    June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
    MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
    a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
    JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
    assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
    UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
    .
    Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed by the useful idiots in the EU

    snotcricket > steph borne

    Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western, er, er partners

    Sonduh

    Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.

    steph borne

    A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding Russia's economic base.''

    Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion will buy 6148 Billion pybs
    Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..

    Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be bought!

    As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem!

    Nikki Santoro

    What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked. And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack, it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.

    steph borne

    Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''

    So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..

    Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142 USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....

    Debt public/ external debt ratios

    U. K..................92%........317%
    usa...................74%......... 98%
    And
    Russia...............8%..........40%

    ''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
    ''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest in half a century,''
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
    As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake don't look here!)

    Sonduh > steph borne

    And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.

    Skalla

    Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears do is FEED --

    vandieman

    A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push Russia into a war.

    Anth2305 > vandieman

    Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.

    gardiner

    When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and society was at its weakest.

    The economy became dependant on resource exports.

    Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating, internationally competitive industry.
    Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!

    beatonthedonis > gardiner

    Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer. Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.

    daddyseanicus

    So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.

    But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.

    Busufi > Jonathan

    In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black or white, so long it catches the mice.

    Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).

    The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.


    Sonduh

    " They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
    We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115% non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.

    PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many hundred pc of GDP.
    The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying Ł7.1 trillion in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still in the workforce.

    This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output. Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand billion – is obviously a huge number.

    And we think Russia is in a bad state.

    georgesilver

    Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.

    Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.

    tarentius > georgesilver

    The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia has 1,200 tonnes.

    Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.

    Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already bankrupt. The number is rising.

    And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.

    Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.

    Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan

    The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians .. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable " the people would back them ..

    Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart from stand up to the US that is

    Jim0341

    Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever, he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing, or otherwise, of the national economy..
    Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.

    Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist

    I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and wars are not hurting us ..

    Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but it will come back to bite them ..

    The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let the US squabble with them by themselves ..

    I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and the rest of the world"

    alec bell

    This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible. 1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.

    Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.

    And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their industrial and agricultural renaissance.

    In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface.

    alec bell > vlad

    vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum (which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way, producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000 and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.

    Nikki Santoro

    Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.

    steve_from_virginia

    Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have 'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions of bankrupt consumers the world around.

    Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.

    At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.

    Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future will arrive the day after tomorrow.

    Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk it?

    Brabantian

    If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom' - now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -

    Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about

    midnightrambler > Guest

    The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries combined
    The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
    Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence - apart from manipulative banking.
    We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and those whose main aim is control and conflict.
    Take your pick
    A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose peace.
    And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit

    Timothy D. Naegele

    Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.

    See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises")

    Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele

    "Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."

    This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process . Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
    The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
    Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.

    midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele

    A yank lawyer advocating killing.
    From the land of citizen killers
    What a surprise
    Stay away

    stephenmarchant

    Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly Ł2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-

    Govt deficit at 5% per anum
    Govt debt at about 80% GDP
    Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
    Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
    A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
    Uncontrolled immigration

    Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.

    In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social cohesion.

    Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat

    The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate' them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that, they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.

    Busufi

    The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.

    Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not smart.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Blood Feud The Clintons vs. the Obamas

    Notable quotes:
    "... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
    "... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
    "... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
    "... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
    "... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
    "... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
    "... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
    "... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
    "... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
    Amazon.com
    Daniel Berger

    5.0 out of 5 stars Klein documents how the Obama-Clinton feud evolved and deepened. July 8, 2014

    The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving book. It's a good political beach read.

    It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged on it.

    There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations. The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009.

    I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations, there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.

    The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing. It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through, but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.

    The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies.

    The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction. Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his administration "rudderless".

    He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much. She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.

    You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine, but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting Hillary not long afterwards.

    Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.

    It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have raised a billion dollars for the run.

    There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition?

    His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South, the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected.

    Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified, will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women; she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways. Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have to do much work.

    Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already sees him losing his clout and political capital.

    The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies - a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons, think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary, for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and acquiesce.

    Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election: what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest political mind of his time.

    PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies, nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies." Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still think they planted a lot of this.

    The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
    "... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
    amazon.com

    Bloody Feud presents in grisly details the sanguinary slugfest between the Obamas and Clintons over power in the White House, July 5, 2014

    By C. M Mills

    Verified Purchase(What's this?)

    This review is from: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (Hardcover)

    Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.

    Among the revelations of Mr Klein":

    1. The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
    2. The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated 2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
    3. Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
    4. Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse.
    5. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
    6. Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
    7. Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
    8. Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the Kennedy family.
    9. Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack and covered up to protect their butts.
    10. Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party.

    Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.

    All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation should read this book and have their eyes opened.

    Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] All candidates in 2016 Presidential elections with the possible exception of Trump, are neocons

    All candidates with the possible exception of Trump, are either neocons or neocon stooges: "Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." ..."
    "... "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." ..."
    "... Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering. ..."
    "... What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. ..."
    "... Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others. ..."
    May 01, 2015 | http://www.insidesources.com/laymans-early-guide-presidential-election/

    From Opinion: A Layman's Early Guide to the Presidential Election

    Posted to Politics As you may have heard, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway. Let's not miss the forest for the trees. While the candidates will make promises to help the middle class or this or that subgroup, remember this: each aspirant wants to govern, that is, rule, you – even those whose rhetoric might suggest otherwise.

    George Washington supposedly said:

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

    Although no evidence links the quotation to the first president, its truth is indisputable. Like it or not, government's distinguishing feature, beginning with its power to tax, is its legal authority to use force against even peaceful individuals minding their own business. Ultimately, that's what rule means, even in a democratic republic, where each adult gets a vote in choosing who will rule.

    As that keen observer of the American political scene, H. L. Mencken, put it years ago,

    "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."

    If you keep that perspective during the coming campaign, you'll be in a much better position to judge the candidates than if you take their solemn pronouncements at face value.

    Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering.

    In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith described such a politician as

    "the man of system [who] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it."

    Has Clinton ever considered that we're not chess pieces in her grand schemes? We might like to make our own decisions.

    What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. At best they propose only to tinker with the welfare-regulatory-warfare state without challenging the institutional privileges that enrich the well-connected or the institutional barriers that impede the marginalized in improving their lives.

    One can see their obeisance toward government power in their support for the "war on drugs," the presumption that government should monitor what we ingest and punish us for violating its prohibitions. Another sign is the candidates' views on immigration. If people have natural rights, why do they need the government's permission to live and work here? A third indicator is their position on world trade. Can you imagine any of them advocating a laissez-faire trade policy with no role for government?

    Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others.

    Appearances can deceive: they're persons of system all.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras

    Notable quotes:
    "... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
    "... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
    "... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.

    Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup.

    On August 7, 15 House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law."

    Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place.

    This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Deep roots of the chaos in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
    "... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
    "... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
    Feb 25, 2015 | The Guardian

    I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine (Review, 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.

    The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.

    There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests.

    The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.

    Martin Packard
    (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire

    [Sep 09, 2016] Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
    "... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
    "... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
    "... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
    "... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
    "... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
    "... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
    "... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by William Reynolds via Medium.com,

    Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal and leaked to Russia Today four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton.

    For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark, no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in 2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with the e-mails the State Department released to the public .

    The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.

    This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia." This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.

    Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.

    So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?

    Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.

    Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing

    Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest. Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.

    This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:

    1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
    2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically "unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

    In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony. In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.

    Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened

    After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February 29th, it has been reported in the last week that:

    This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing. If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    strannick

    F.U., cowardly, corrupt, politically aligned Department Of Justice. Big tough cops afraid of a power craving sociopath in a pantsuit.

    Vint Slugs, |

    Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton - not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators use - is a compulsive liar.

    Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality. I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.

    Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist philosophy.

    o r c k , |

    We snuck a planeload of Bin-Ladens back to SA on 9-11. That makes this lower than a traffic ticket.

    Money Boo Boo ,

    Clitilda is betting TPTB will make this all go away so that Drumpf doesn't become President, simple as that!

    wildbad ,

    so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on 911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on 911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories to protect their saudi pals?

    ok, got it. whats the problem?

    strannick ,

    "If the lawmakers would just do their job, Hilary Clinton won't be running for President" -D.T., March 8

    3.7.77 ,

    She's pure evil, unbelievable people don't see this.

    Goliath Slayer ,

    BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow" should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American Iraq invasion too.

    WOW! I'm sold. NOT.

    Guess what, if that's all you got, Hillary Next POTUS >>> http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr

    caconhma ,

    Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket.

    Slomotrainwreck,

    If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    It's too confusing. Time for O'Bozo to declare himself and his handlers Kings of everything everywhere.

    Freddie ,

    The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners going back to Mena, Arkansas.

    The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.

    The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.

    Chumly, |

    We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.

    The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.

    And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."

    That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.

    willwork4food ,

    I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what difference does it make?

    Demdere ,

    Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with obsolete shit weapons, I think.

    So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.

    God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.

    Pancho Villa,|

    Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.

    As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.

    The Iconoclast,

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream.

    Demdere,

    No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?

    Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses, and the host may die as a result.

    thebigunit,

    A very good point:

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate.

    It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed.

    How do you feel these days?

    Don Smith,|

    Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...

    wildbad,

    BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech.

    They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Clintons Libyan War and the Delusions of Interventionists

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
    "... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
    "... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
    "... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
    "... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
    The American Conservative
    The New York Times reports on Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:

    Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]

    It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe" the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support, but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.

    "Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the "right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals will take care of it for them later on.

    The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the "good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.

    The article continues:

    The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people.

    The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:

    "But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction, which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."

    This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.

    Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:

    France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

    "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.'

    This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support" France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist from Clinton.

    It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Libyas Chaos Theory Undercuts Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
    "... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
    "... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
    "... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
    "... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
    "... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
    "... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
    Jun 04, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed "channel" built out of rewards and punishments.

    ...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments, have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.

    ...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial sanctions and even criminal charges.

    ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)

    ... ... ...

    Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2, "One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies, has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."

    ... ... ...

    Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel" to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington. But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.

    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 in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down

    Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate. Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAFGswEYC0Q

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman.

    Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am

    While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign contributions from military industry.

    For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from 1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars since.

    This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution. It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,

    The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest range of viewpoints.

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating until it becomes common gospel.

    Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.

    The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward to…. what?

    One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire the best of efforts.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin." This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent is probably as perilous as she is.

    Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site. If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous ***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating out Bush the Dumber.

    Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland and the TPP?


    SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    "So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans, distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in, and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country. …" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"? And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in 2011?

    Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking, so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about, he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!

    How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her Wellesley education; she's not that bright.

    dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization would bring chaos throughout the region.

    Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew that, she is incapable.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated.

    In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic." They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they can continue to commit more travesties.

    Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
    What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence across the region has galvanized it instead.

    Moving the mercenary forces of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects" from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize and destroy Egypt.

    IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria, where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.

    Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya, neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention anyway.

    One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.

    Washington's Fake War on ISIS "Moves" to Libya
    By Ulson Gunnar
    https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/04/washingtons-fake-war-on-isis-moves-to.html


    Pablo Diablo, June 4, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    OIL=MONEY.

    Peter GarciaWebb, June 4, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension of the 0.01%

    rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more, and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction, was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country. Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.

    Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am

    Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future, thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers, which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats), as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will - and no one will dare stop us.

    Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories. Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m8efcUhvDA

    F. G. Sanford, June 5, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set in motion,
    Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
    All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
    The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this commotion!

    Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
    The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
    The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been preempted,
    Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt them.

    Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their thieves for a banquet-
    Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
    They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
    They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets they'll crank it.

    Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided indictment,
    Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts of corruption.
    He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no help from Clinton,
    Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner excitement!

    If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and replace him.
    The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need to worry,
    The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves of migration.
    If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is such a quick swim!

    The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance advisor.
    They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems quite consistent-
    Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the Dinar will prosper.
    Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a miser!

    Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to a ditch,
    But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone will emerge,
    They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence will flow unabated.
    The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't be a hitch.

    But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine skills leaner and meaner,
    He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make him or break him,
    He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes spew that stench:
    A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any old wiener!

    His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and camouflaged perch.
    He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet classified selfies,
    If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers or briefs,
    The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image to smirch.

    He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
    As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
    She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence analysts squirm,
    Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in his shorts.

    As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
    Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
    If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must prevail.
    There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy trauma.

    The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really get spooked.
    Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh or a cackle.
    Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible quote:
    "We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw, and we nuked."

    Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more. It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.

    Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil.

    My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda.

    Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.

    This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.

    Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Libya

    The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now. As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
    Notable quotes:
    "... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
    "... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
    "... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
    "... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
    "... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
    "... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
    "... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
    "... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
    "... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
    "... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
    "... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
    Nov 19, 2015 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:

    CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful, fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.

    In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.

    Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.

    Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.

    ... ... ...

    David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University

    Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida

    Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.

    Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.

    Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.

    Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one.

    Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico

    Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that will take too much space to elucidate.

    But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
    And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi: https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI

    Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University

    How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east, her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune, providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?

    AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.

    Charles Hill · Clifton High School

    This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.

    And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided to support. Now ISIS is running things there.

    Brian Donahue · New York, New York

    The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.

    Clarc King · Bronx, New York

    A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic, elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.

    Linda LaRoque · Odessa College

    If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.

    Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

    Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    #DonaldTrumpForPresident #StandUpForTrump #donaldjtrump.com

    Martin Gill · Cabrillo College

    That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.

    Terry Lee · Telgar

    The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on? It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!

    Elizabeth Fichtl

    The country is waking up.

    Question put to HRC during the debate.

    Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"

    Leslie Ware · Preston High School

    Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:

    1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

    Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

    2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.

    Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified information.

    3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this pretender to the presidency really is.

    Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.

    Clinton for Trial 2016.

    Mike Kelly

    OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.

    The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result, your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political purposes, as was done during the previous administration.

    David Auner · Springfield, Missouri

    This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper analysis.

    Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho

    Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us.

    Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited

    US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

    Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press

    The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell over themselves to put a knife in his back.

    James Charles O'Donnell III

    Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?

    Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those SCOTUS seats!).

    With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner, inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely (corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 -- and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillarys Huge Libya Disaster

    Jun 15, 2016 | The National Interest

    Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

    ... ... ...

    Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi" at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Michael Greenberger: Setting the Stage For the Next Wall Street Crisis

    Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism. No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
    "... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
    "... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

    Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular on futures price manipulation.

    Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.

    I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing.

    Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done.

    No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign.

    Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.

    Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.


    Posted by Jesse at 1:24 PM

    [Sep 09, 2016] What if illary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State

    Jul 08, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Erelis -> RootieKazootie, June 8 2016, 3:27 p.m.

    Worse yet, if Hillary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State. The effect will be like turning on Skynet.
    Doug Salzmann -> Erelis, June 8 2016, 4:00 p.m.

    But we might get cookies.

    elwood, June 8 2016, 12:49 p.m.

    Now Clinton can put together her ticket.
    She's tapping Martin Shkreli as her VP, and they're calling it the Super Predator ticket.

    [Sep 06, 2016] Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools

    Notable quotes:
    "... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
    "... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
    "... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
    "... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
    Sep 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:43 PM
    Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!

    Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness of losing people over Serbia.

    Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.

    Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing W level insanity.

    Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in 1993.

    likbez -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:24 PM
    Bravo ilsm !!!

    We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted by Nuremberg tribunal.

    All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question -- "war vs peace" question.

    A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM.

    Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.

    "Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.

    Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.

    Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).

    But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)

    [Sep 05, 2016] Gli Usa e la guerra fredda il prezzo della vittoria - rivista italiana di geopolitica

    Bill Clinton was a regular neoliberal bottom feeder (in essence not that different from drunkard Yeltsin) without any strategical vision or political courage, He destroyed the golden possibility of rapprochement of the USA and Russia (which would require something like Marshall plan to help Russia). Instead he decided to plunder the country. It's sad that now Hillary will continue his policies, only in more jingoistic, dangerous fashion. She learn nothing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency. ..."
    "... Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon. ..."
    "... The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership. ..."
    "... This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high . ..."
    Dec 12, 2011 | temi.repubblica.it

    07/12/2011

    America won the Cold War. But in addition to the USSR, has it defeated Russia? This question, which is still in the nineties sounded absurd to most people, began to appear in the last decade, thanks to the work of historians such as Dimitri Simes, John Lewis Gaddis, or in Italy, Adriano Roccucci.

    In the United States is widely believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused in large part by strategic decisions of the Reagan administration. Surely the military and economic pressure exerted by these contributed to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and then the final crisis of the Soviet system. However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency.

    This has resulted, in retrospect, in an overestimation of U.S. policy choices in the mid-eighties onwards, and in a parallel underestimation of the role played by the Soviet leadership. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 determined to solve the problems left behind by Brezhnev: overexposure military in Afghanistan and subsequent explosion of spending on defense, imposed on an economy tremendously inefficient. But if Reagan pushed the USSR on the edge of the precipice, Gorbachev was disposable, albeit unwittingly, triggering reforms that escaped the hands of his own theorist.

    That fact has been largely removed from public debate and U.S. historiography which has led America in the second mistake: underestimating the enemy defeated, confusing the defunct Soviet Union with what was left of his heart - Russia.

    In fact, Reagan and Bush Sr. after him fully understand the dangers inherent in the collapse of the superpower enemy, dealing with Gorbachev touch, even without discounts: the Soviet leader was refused the pressing demands for economic aid, incompatible with the military escalation Reagan once to crush the Soviet Union under the weight of war spending.

    Even the first Gulf War (1990-91), who saw the massive American intervention in a country (Iraq) at the time near the borders of the USSR, did not provoke a diplomatic rupture between the two superpowers. This Soviet weakness undoubtedly was the result of an empire in decline, but remember that even in 1990 no one - least of all, the leadership in Moscow - the Soviet Union finally gave up on us yet.

    Despite an election campaign played on the charge to GH Bush to focus too much on foreign policy, ignoring the economics (It's the economy, stupid), newly installed in the White House Bill Clinton was not spared aid to Russia, agreeing to this line of credit to be logged on to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from June 1992. Clinton's support was directed mainly toward the figure of Yeltsin and his policies, with the exception of waging war against Chechen separatism, in 1994.

    If Clinton with these moves proved to understand, like its two predecessors, the importance of "accompany" the Russian transition, avoiding - or at least contain - the chaos following the collapse of a continental empire, the other part of his administration demonstrated sinful paternalism and, above all, acquired the illusion of omnipotence that he saw in the "unipolar moment" end not only the U.S. opposed the US-USSR, but also of any power ambitions of Russia. Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon.

    The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership.

    This went hand in hand with growing resentment for the permanent position of inferiority which they were relegated by Washington. To the point that even the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, known by the nickname "Yes sir" for his acquiescence to the dictates of Americans, showed growing impatience with the brutal Russian downgrading by America.

    Indeed, the United States administration did not lack critics: former President Nixon, a number of businessmen and experts of Russia expressed skepticism or opposition to the Clinton administration attitude that did not seem to pay particular attention to wounded pride and the strategic interests of a nation that continued to think of itself as empire. However, these positions does not affect the dominant view in the administration of the establishment and much of the U.S., where consencus was that Russia in no longer entitled to have an independent foreign policy.

    This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high .

    [Sep 04, 2016] Our Warped Debates About War by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
    "... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
    "... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
    "... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    August 30, 2016, 11:13 AM

    Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful column on the horrors of war last week:

    Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.

    War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.

    War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.

    Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms. They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines" or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.

    It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers. While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."

    Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency, the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Clintons American Legion Speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
    "... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
    "... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. ..."
    "... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them. ..."
    "... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility." ..."
    "... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
    "... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
    "... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world. ..."
    "... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
    "... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
    "... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
    "... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians. ..."
    "... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
    "... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff. ..."
    "... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
    Aug 31, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Hillary Clinton's speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton to be a poor messenger, or both.

    The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today.

    Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S. will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S. will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.

    Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this. This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.

    At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics." That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible thing to say.

    otto, August 31, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    She is opting for the neo-cons. Smart move
    Viriato , August 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    "At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.' That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."

    That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

    Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.

    Myles , August 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them.
    Captain P , August 31, 2016 at 3:40 pm
    Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility."
    Joseph M. , August 31, 2016 at 3:44 pm
    Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
    SF, August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.

    Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President.

    Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.

    Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.

    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world.

    When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.

    Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times. How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went full Neocon.

    Simon94022 , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:

    1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal pique.

    OR

    2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.

    Pick your poison.

    Smart Aleck Power , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation."

    Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East?

    Neal , August 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm
    I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president, but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
    Commenter Man , August 31, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. .
    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 7:20 pm
    We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation

    This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact same sentence.

    Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is the only Neocon portal that I bother with.

    If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.

    jk , August 31, 2016 at 9:09 pm
    Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
    cecelia, August 31, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff.
    Anonne , September 2, 2016 at 12:07 am
    The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
    Bowman , September 2, 2016 at 6:40 pm
    " She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world"

    … and one can but hope that her aim is true …

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberalism is every bit the wellspring of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
    "... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
    "... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
    "... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
    "... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
    "... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Cranky Observer 09.03.16 at 6:28 pm

    = = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =

    It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
    In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.

    Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe, it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.

    If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.

    All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different from the one presented by Will G-R.

    Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design of political and social institutions.

    Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform. Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.

    Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds on "normal" politics.

    Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution.

    I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.

    Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty years later.

    It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed.

    If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.

    Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus in American politics in the late 1950s.

    What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success.

    It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

    Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.

    Rich Puchalsky 09.03.16 at 11:09 pm
    I write more about this over at my blog (in a somewhat different context).
    John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
    RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did advisedly. You say
    The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
    Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy implications.
    likbez 09.04.16 at 4:18 pm
    I would say that neoliberalism is closer to market fundamentalism, then market liberalism. See, for example:
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Articles/definitions_of_neoliberalism.shtml

    === quote ===
    Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets" as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime (pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players. Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.

    The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft" methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.

    Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.

    Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social system were made:

    1. Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
    2. Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
    3. Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This idea has two major variations:
      • Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
      • Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism - "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism Common Dreams )

    The first two are the most popular.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm

    bruce,

    @117

    Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:

    "It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism."

    "What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success."

    Moreover as Will G-R noted:

    "neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."

    Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Ethnography of the far right

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
    "... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
    "... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
    "... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
    Aug 01, 2016 | understandingsociety.blogspot.com

    Monday,

    nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy. And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.

    An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , curated by Kathleen Blee ( link ). This volume brings together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading. Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized Racism :

    Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups . These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites. They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
    One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.

    The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:


    Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.

    But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community, affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
    Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy, suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
    Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters, but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities, and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate, internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
    A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
    Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he "moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking 'who am I?'" ...

    Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...

    For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from, you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)

    Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for young girls in India:
    The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian, with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion, and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home. They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.

    The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures, group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.

    Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits, storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)

    And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
    Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later.

    The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings, or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).

    Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)

    Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays.

    Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology ( link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center ( link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign. The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play significant causal roles.

    [Sep 04, 2016] The rise of Austrofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
    "... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
    "... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | understandingsociety.blogspot.com

    Understanding Society

    Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments. (Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here; Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)

    One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman, Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .

    Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and ideology in inter-war Vienna:

    The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. (6)
    This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
    At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe. The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.

    Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895 until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students, among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 03, 2016] The problem with corruption in Washington these days is that they don't know it's corruption - it's the atmosphere they breathe, the ocean they swim in.

    angrybearblog.com

    The problem with corruption in Washington these days is that they don't know it's corruption - it's the atmosphere they breathe, the ocean they swim in.

    People who want something from you give you gifts? Well, the gift-giving has nothing to do with what they want you to do. They just like you. And you aren't at all influenced by the gifts and their presumed affection. Unlike the rest of humanity, you aren't at all affected by your perception of others' valuing of you. Really?

    In a criminal trial, potential jurors who know anyone who will be involved in the trial are dismissed. Silly courts? I don't think so. That level of ignorance between the governed and their representatives is neither possible nor desirable, but its requirement where government will act is, I think, an accurate indication of the probability of conscious or unconscious influence of relationships.

    If gift giving to those in power isn't corrupt or corrupting, what's the problem with Citizens United again?

    In short, this pabulum about the real purity of backscratching is the crony justification of corruption. It's not corruption. It's just the way nice honest grownup people with favors to give live.

    [Sep 03, 2016] On Corruption at CUNY - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... Isnt that embezzlement or sth like that instead of corrupton ? ..."
    "... Anti-corruption has been used to justify some shady stuff in the past, like voter registration laws in the early 20th century. But it most definitely is not overblown in truth – corruption is absolutely corrosive to society. ..."
    "... As for large labor unions, they're human bureaucracies. Any sort of large, hierarchical bureaucracy tends to pile up problems over time even with some degree of democratic accountability in theory – corruption, nepotism, ladder-climbers, Company Men, in-fighters, self-righteous vested interests/gatekeepers, etc. Maybe it's why it doesn't bother me especially when they have the same kind of problems as other big organizations, only if they're exceptionally bad. ..."
    "... The problem with the neo-liberal critique is making a invidious distinction between the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Both have legal (but immoral) varieties of corruption and illegal varieties. Both have trouble aligning the needs of executives (or other powerful individuals) with the needs of the organization or its mission. Both can be insulated from supposedly corrective forces (i.e., the market or the polity). Both suffer from the danger of executive "entrepreneurialism" in proportion to potential spoils. ..."
    "... Ah, the power of the invisible hand. Would that it were so. The only corporations of any size I have ever observed that managed to maintain strong and reasonably effective control of peculation were the (now essentially defunct) regulated utilities: telephone companies, electric utilities, some banks. ..."
    "... That sounds a bit too maximalistic and seems to concede too much ground to the neoliberals and libertarians. Yes, corruption is very demoralising and debilitating, but almost all institutions, movements, regimes and social forces exhibit corruption to some extent, even when they are beneficial or less harmful than their alternatives. ..."
    "... Contrary to the rhetoric of the Right, a trade union in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for busting trade unions, and a state in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for privatisation or for abolishing the state. Similarly, a government in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and/or be preferable to its opposition. ..."
    "... Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions. ..."
    "... The tendency of the corporate form is both to increase organisation and to increase power. If all power tends to corrupt, that must include the power vested in corporations and the power vested by corporations in individuals. The dictum is not restricted to 'monopoly power tends to corrupt' or 'government power tends to corrupt'. ..."
    "... Corruption, embezzlement, and dishonesty are hard to eliminate; so long as there is trust, there will be breaches of trust. But it is no solution never to trust. This is not to say that corruption should be ignored when found, nor that anti-corruption efforts should be abandoned; only that hope should not be abandoned solely because corruption persists. ..."
    "... There's a lot of abstract hand-wringing on the centre-left about "inequality" that seems oddly reluctant to connect the rapid increases in chief executive pay to a variety of ways in which institutional trust and mission commitment can be undermined to fund executive "compensation". This case looks like it will turn out to be a remarkably complex case, in which the corruption of the donors is at much at issue as the corruption of the fund-raisers. ..."
    "... When it comes to things like spending large amounts of other people's money, or counting votes in an election, I don't want to have to trust people. There should be a system in place to, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify". ..."
    "... Ms. Coico tried to be too careful. The trick to making insiders comfortable with kleptocracy is to just spend money freely on your mates, then blame capitalism when the bill comes. If you run around asking for budget cuts and fee increases, don't be surprised when they suddenly take notions like fiduciary duty and the sanctity of donor intention or tax-funded grants very seriously indeed. And even if it turns out that your embezzlement is a fraction of the deficit, your head will still roll – the faculty can't stop legislatures from refusing to fund them, but they can lash out at you instead. ..."
    "... I live in a large Northeastern city, which has had moderately corrupt leadership and moderately clean leadership. The clean leadership could afford to be clean because it was funded–completely legally–by the plutocracy. The moderately corrupt leadership has been far more democratically accountable, somewhat more effective in providing public services, and has been reasonably modest in its skim. I'm not saying that corruption is necessary for democracy–I've also lived in squeaky-clean local governments that are pretty responsive and responsible, and a damn sight lower in taxes. But corruption is not inimical, if it's the right kind of corruption. ..."
    "... Basically, some kinds of corruption can serve to align interests; Roosevelt's crackdown on police corruption made for more damaging and predatory crime, and more violence (both state and non-state.) ..."
    "... Corey hasn't explained why he's come to view corruption as "destroying everything." I'm still with Foundling in #14 that there are things that are worse…and in a neoliberal meritocratic society that's almost everything. Corruption at least tends to leave things unchanged rather than reformed towards universal wage and debt slavery. ..."
    "... Corey, it may amuse you and other social scientists to know that in my time at the World Bank, corruption by client states implicitly encouraged by bank lending was known by the euphemism 'political economy'. ..."
    "... It might be noted that what is considered 'corruption' may vary as to environment and ideology, and what would be considered corrupt in a government or a union or other den of leftist iniquity may not be corrupt in business. For example, a large brokerage house I once worked for decided it had to give its field agents a new customer information system. ..."
    "... Requests for proposals were circulated and proposals received. A committee of hotshot engineers investigated them full-time, and the opinions of dozens or maybe hundreds of others sought. A strongly evidenced, strongly reasoned recommendation was made. ..."
    "... The CEO then played golf with Paul Allen of Microsoft, and the recommendation went out the window. Ultimately this decision wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That would have been a crime in government, in a union, or in many other institutions, but in business it's entirely legal and quite common. And there is no recourse, except through the market; and markets are mentally unstable, and often sort of dumb, just like the humans who constitute them. ..."
    "... I think, though, that you started well. 'Institutions will never "remove the muck of the ages." Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts.' Well said. But then the Faith took over, and led you astray. ..."
    "... I'd be very suspicious of accusations of corruption. That has led, for example, to discriminatory voter ID laws. And now the impeachment of leftist populism in Brazil, notably by those more corrupt. Successful anticorruption can generally be assumed to be the greater corruption demolishing a lesser one. The greatest corruption never falls unless overtaken by one even greater. ..."
    Aug 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    The New York Times reports this morning:

    The City University of New York is investigating whether a recent $500,000 donation intended to bolster the humanities and arts at its flagship school may have been improperly diverted.

    The inquiry was prompted by senior faculty members at the school, the City College of New York, who learned that an account that should have contained roughly $600,000, thanks to the donation, had just $76. Faculty members asked City College officials for an explanation, but were met with "silence, delay and deflection" before appealing directly the university's chancellor, James B. Milliken. Mr. Milliken then asked Frederick P. Schaffer, the university's general counsel and senior vice chancellor for legal affairs, to look into the "the expenditure of monies donated," according to documents obtained by The New York Times.

    This is part of a followup to a piece the Times ran last spring, which I blogged about, and which claimed:

    Documents obtained by The Times indicated that the college's 21st Century Foundation paid for some of Ms. Coico's personal expenses, such as fruit baskets, housekeeping services and rugs, when she took office in 2010. The foundation was then reimbursed for more than $150,000 from CUNY 's Research Foundation. That has raised eyebrows among governance experts, because such funds are typically earmarked for research.

    It's unclear what the $600,000 went to, and who made the decision. Hence, the investigation, which involves federal prosecutors. But at a minimum, it seems clear that the money was used for purposes it was not earmarked for.

    I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type concerns, a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of developing countries. After years of hearing about stuff like this at CUNY , and in some cases seeing much worse, I've come to realize just how corrosive and politically debilitating corruption is. It's like a fungus or a parasite. It attaches itself to a host, a body that is full of possibility and promise, a body that contains so much of what we hope for, and it feeds off that body till it dies.

    One of the reasons why, politically, it's worse when corruption happens at an institution like CUNY or in a labor union-as opposed to the legalized or even illegal corruption that goes on at the highest reaches of the political economy-is that these are, or are supposed to be, sites of opposition to all that is wrong and wretched in the world. These are institutions that are supposed to remove the muck of ages.

    It's hard enough to believe in that kind of transformative work, and those kinds of transformative institutions, under the best of conditions. But when corruption becomes a part of the picture, it's impossible.

    Corruption is pure poison. It destroys everything. Even-or especially-the promise of that transformation.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    hix 08.30.16 at 2:10 pm

    Isnt that embezzlement or sth like that instead of corrupton ? (im a bit lost even with the German legal terms here, but it still looks wrong)
    BenK 08.30.16 at 2:47 pm
    Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions.

    Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond all monopolies and the source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being corrupt without attracting the attention of upstart competition. Labor, as well (unless, again, it has a monopoly sanctioned and enforced by the government).

    The power of reform and repentance is with individuals, not organizations.

    casmilus 08.30.16 at 3:21 pm
    Make "Last Exit To Brooklyn" a compulsory text for all Humanities students at CUNY.
    Frank Wilhoit 08.30.16 at 6:06 pm
    You say "corruption". The plants hear "fertilizer".
    Stephen 08.30.16 at 7:08 pm
    "labor union[s] … are, or are supposed to be, sites of opposition to all that is wrong and wretched in the world. "
    Strewth. I have clear memories of the antics of (some of) the UK trades unions in the 1970s and 1980s, or even nowadays, and I have heard interesting things about the Teamsters in the US. I think "supposed to be" is carrying an intolerable amount of weight her.
    Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:20 pm
    "I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type concerns, a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of developing countries."

    About every 5-10 years I look back at things like that where I've dismissed things as overblown and found that they are correct or at least have a lot more force than I thought. It turns out we can't be right about everything.

    Brett 08.30.16 at 9:12 pm
    @8

    I can sort of see where Corey might be coming on this. Anti-corruption has been used to justify some shady stuff in the past, like voter registration laws in the early 20th century. But it most definitely is not overblown in truth – corruption is absolutely corrosive to society.

    As for large labor unions, they're human bureaucracies. Any sort of large, hierarchical bureaucracy tends to pile up problems over time even with some degree of democratic accountability in theory – corruption, nepotism, ladder-climbers, Company Men, in-fighters, self-righteous vested interests/gatekeepers, etc. Maybe it's why it doesn't bother me especially when they have the same kind of problems as other big organizations, only if they're exceptionally bad.

    otpup 08.30.16 at 10:21 pm
    I had a student job at Hunter this decade for a few years. I heard endless (and bitter) gossip about the cronyism of the administration new at the time.
    otpup 08.30.16 at 10:32 pm
    The problem with the neo-liberal critique is making a invidious distinction between the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Both have legal (but immoral) varieties of corruption and illegal varieties. Both have trouble aligning the needs of executives (or other powerful individuals) with the needs of the organization or its mission. Both can be insulated from supposedly corrective forces (i.e., the market or the polity). Both suffer from the danger of executive "entrepreneurialism" in proportion to potential spoils.
    Cranky Observer 08.30.16 at 11:59 pm

    = = =BenK @ 2:47 PM: Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond all monopolies and the source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being corrupt without attracting the attention of upstart competition.= = =

    Ah, the power of the invisible hand. Would that it were so. The only corporations of any size I have ever observed that managed to maintain strong and reasonably effective control of peculation were the (now essentially defunct) regulated utilities: telephone companies, electric utilities, some banks.

    In all cases they were helped on the path to righteousness by strong external regulatory and audit agencies, some degree of a spirit of public service in the operation and workforce, some degree of public view into their operations and incentives for members of the public to use that view, and legal limits on allowable profit. How fast that all can go away in the corporate world, and the usual run of mutual board appointments, back scratching, nest feathering, every man for himself and the most he can grab, etc take its place can be measured from 1994 in the electricity industry. Took about 5 years IIRC.

    F. Foundling 08.31.16 at 1:08 am
    OP:
    > I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type concerns, a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of developing countries.

    >It's hard enough to believe in that kind of transformative work, and those kinds of transformative institutions, under the best of conditions. But when corruption becomes a part of the picture, it's impossible.

    That sounds a bit too maximalistic and seems to concede too much ground to the neoliberals and libertarians. Yes, corruption is very demoralising and debilitating, but almost all institutions, movements, regimes and social forces exhibit corruption to some extent, even when they are beneficial or less harmful than their alternatives.

    They don't need to be perfect to be worthy of defence. Contrary to the rhetoric of the Right, a trade union in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for busting trade unions, and a state in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for privatisation or for abolishing the state. Similarly, a government in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and/or be preferable to its opposition.

    Tabasco 08.31.16 at 1:50 am
    The $600,000 might or not be missing because of corruption. If it was spent on a legitimate purpose of the university, such as paying salaries of the IT staff, or fixing the plumbing, then that's really bad, because the money was supposed to spent on the humanities and arts, and it might be criminal, but it's not the same as paying a bribe or just someone just stealing the money.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:08 am
    Of course, "we have no idea what happened to the money" means that it is not a prosecutable offense. Just an occasion for an investigation upon which no one could possibly comment until the news cycle has passed several times over.

    Everybody's doing it. Nothing to see here.

    LFC 08.31.16 at 3:11 am
    Stipulating that corruption can be found in a variety of different contexts, the countries in which it's most severe, to the point at which it becomes an inadequate descriptive word, tend to be those in which regimes loot the surplus from resource extraction with the tacit or perhaps in some cases active participation of multinationals operating in the country.

    There are various possible examples (including several in subSaharan Africa and [I think] the former Soviet central Asia) but I happen to be thinking specifically of Angola, which until the decline in oil prices had, if I'm not mistaken, the most expensive (by some measures) city in the world (Luanda) alongside one of the highest rates of child mortality in the world, if not the highest. In general the so-called resource curse is pertinent here, i.e. regimes/countries that have put all their eggs in the oil basket or something comparable.

    The issue is not so much tsk-tsking about 'poor governance' but rather trying to sort out the ways in which the global political economy and its m.o. facilitate or at least create permissive conditions for these situations, in tandem w/ the local contexts.

    LFC 08.31.16 at 3:48 am
    p.s. In June, the SEC issued a good rule on disclosure of payments to govts by resource-extraction companies:
    https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-132.html
    J-D 08.31.16 at 4:45 am

    BenK 08.30.16 at 2:47 pm

    Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions.

    Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond all monopolies and the source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being corrupt without attracting the attention of upstart competition. Labor, as well (unless, again, it has a monopoly sanctioned and enforced by the government).

    The power of reform and repentance is with individuals, not organizations.

    The tendency of the corporate form is both to increase organisation and to increase power. If all power tends to corrupt, that must include the power vested in corporations and the power vested by corporations in individuals. The dictum is not restricted to 'monopoly power tends to corrupt' or 'government power tends to corrupt'.

    J-D 08.31.16 at 4:48 am
    Corruption, embezzlement, and dishonesty are hard to eliminate; so long as there is trust, there will be breaches of trust. But it is no solution never to trust. This is not to say that corruption should be ignored when found, nor that anti-corruption efforts should be abandoned; only that hope should not be abandoned solely because corruption persists.
    bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 5:29 am
    Trust? Trust in leadership.

    "The fish rots from the head" is an expression, I think.

    There's a lot of abstract hand-wringing on the centre-left about "inequality" that seems oddly reluctant to connect the rapid increases in chief executive pay to a variety of ways in which institutional trust and mission commitment can be undermined to fund executive "compensation". This case looks like it will turn out to be a remarkably complex case, in which the corruption of the donors is at much at issue as the corruption of the fund-raisers.

    maidhc 08.31.16 at 6:47 am
    I think there is a need to have independent accountants conduct periodic audits to verify that all money was used for its intended purpose. That's true for public institutions because they use the people's money, and it's true for publicly traded companies because it's the shareholders' money. This is common practice at any large corporation I've been involved with, and I'm rather surprised that it doesn't happen at a university.

    The chancellor of UC Davis just lost her job for misusing university money, specifically by hiring relatives into sinecures at inflated salaries. And other things. It's nice to hear that sometimes there are consequences.

    Most universities I know about are rather nit-picky about how you can spend money. Like you can buy a tablet because it's a computing device, but you can't buy a phone because it's a personal item.

    When it comes to things like spending large amounts of other people's money, or counting votes in an election, I don't want to have to trust people. There should be a system in place to, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify".

    That doesn't solve the problem of inflated salaries at the top, but that's a different problem.

    david 08.31.16 at 7:58 am
    "Several faculty members worried that the money had been spent instead on helping the college close a budget deficit at the end of its fiscal year on June 30."

    … which would have triggered a heroic resistance against capitalism and debt and budget cuts; instead, whoops, it's tawdry embezzlement.

    Ms. Coico tried to be too careful. The trick to making insiders comfortable with kleptocracy is to just spend money freely on your mates, then blame capitalism when the bill comes. If you run around asking for budget cuts and fee increases, don't be surprised when they suddenly take notions like fiduciary duty and the sanctity of donor intention or tax-funded grants very seriously indeed. And even if it turns out that your embezzlement is a fraction of the deficit, your head will still roll – the faculty can't stop legislatures from refusing to fund them, but they can lash out at you instead.

    Ebenezer Scrooge 08.31.16 at 11:02 am
    Corruption is a matter of kind, as well as degree.

    I live in a large Northeastern city, which has had moderately corrupt leadership and moderately clean leadership. The clean leadership could afford to be clean because it was funded–completely legally–by the plutocracy. The moderately corrupt leadership has been far more democratically accountable, somewhat more effective in providing public services, and has been reasonably modest in its skim. I'm not saying that corruption is necessary for democracy–I've also lived in squeaky-clean local governments that are pretty responsive and responsible, and a damn sight lower in taxes. But corruption is not inimical, if it's the right kind of corruption.

    Corruption, I think, is worse in civil society institutions than in government. Civil society institutions are inherently not democratic–especially universities! (No–senior faculty is only a demos in the Athenian sense of the term.) These things are governed by fiduciary principles, which are inimical to corruption of any kind.

    SamChevre 08.31.16 at 2:28 pm
    The best introduction I know to the uses and dangers of corruption is the section on the NYC police in The Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens .

    Basically, some kinds of corruption can serve to align interests; Roosevelt's crackdown on police corruption made for more damaging and predatory crime, and more violence (both state and non-state.)

    Michael Epton 09.01.16 at 7:11 am
    This is why I took Larry Lessig's quixotic presidential candidacy seriously this year. In addition to helping me understand how patent and copyright on steroids threatens the future of civilization, he has lately undertaken the attack on corruption: the greater threat.
    Charles Peterson 09.01.16 at 5:10 pm
    Corey hasn't explained why he's come to view corruption as "destroying everything." I'm still with Foundling in #14 that there are things that are worse…and in a neoliberal meritocratic society that's almost everything. Corruption at least tends to leave things unchanged rather than reformed towards universal wage and debt slavery.
    Charles Peterson 09.02.16 at 5:18 am
    The greatest of science, art, literature, and philosophy are all the residue of earlier corruption. Charles Darwin was a gentleman, and it is impossible to imagine otherwise. That's to say he was the beneficiary of an ancient corruption, the original theft.

    It is precisely the successors of that original theft who would be the beneficiaries of the perfect investment, if it were possible, which would benefit only the investor and neither be a cost nor a benefit to anyone else in society.

    That is to say that all the benefits to anyone and everyone else have come through the corruption of capitalism, rather than its perfection.

    Maria 09.02.16 at 7:18 am
    Corey, it may amuse you and other social scientists to know that in my time at the World Bank, corruption by client states implicitly encouraged by bank lending was known by the euphemism 'political economy'.
    Anarcissie 09.02.16 at 8:16 pm
    BenK 08.30.16 at 2:47 pm @ 2 -
    I see you have not worked much in private corporate environments.

    It might be noted that what is considered 'corruption' may vary as to environment and ideology, and what would be considered corrupt in a government or a union or other den of leftist iniquity may not be corrupt in business. For example, a large brokerage house I once worked for decided it had to give its field agents a new customer information system.

    Requests for proposals were circulated and proposals received. A committee of hotshot engineers investigated them full-time, and the opinions of dozens or maybe hundreds of others sought. A strongly evidenced, strongly reasoned recommendation was made.

    The CEO then played golf with Paul Allen of Microsoft, and the recommendation went out the window. Ultimately this decision wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That would have been a crime in government, in a union, or in many other institutions, but in business it's entirely legal and quite common. And there is no recourse, except through the market; and markets are mentally unstable, and often sort of dumb, just like the humans who constitute them.

    I think, though, that you started well. 'Institutions will never "remove the muck of the ages." Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts.' Well said. But then the Faith took over, and led you astray.

    Charles Peterson 09.03.16 at 3:49 am
    I'd be very suspicious of accusations of corruption. That has led, for example, to discriminatory voter ID laws. And now the impeachment of leftist populism in Brazil, notably by those more corrupt. Successful anticorruption can generally be assumed to be the greater corruption demolishing a lesser one. The greatest corruption never falls unless overtaken by one even greater.

    And generally, if crime doth pay, none dare call it crime. So we have private healthcare insurance, very costly to society, which performs exactly one function–the death panel function. And then, Wall Street. I should have started with outgoing call marketing and spam, but those are technically criminal in some cases.

    But why stop there, when about the highest price is paid to rain endless warfare, or in some previous brief periods the mere threat of it, on the imagined possible threats to global plutocracy.

    Charles Peterson 09.03.16 at 4:24 am
    And Tobacco, Oil, Coal, Fracking, Agrifuel, Agribusinesses of many kinds, the list of legal criminality goes on.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Samir Amin How to Defeat the Collective Imperialism of the Triad

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
    "... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
    "... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
    Feb 09, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive interview for Katehon

    I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers, which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.

    The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars.

    We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy, reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism. It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security etc.

    The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry, in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state. Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.

    Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.

    The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Russia's False Hopes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
    "... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
    "... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
    "... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
    "... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
    "... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
    "... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
    "... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
    "... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
    "... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
    09, 2015 | Defend Democracy Press

    Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is losing its grip on reality.

    Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.

    Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev nor in Washington, London, and NATO.

    Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.

    Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.

    Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air.

    This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.

    Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms," Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting in accordance with "international norms."

    Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.

    A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country.

    Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing. Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.

    Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

    Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."

    The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.

    The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.

    Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot think strategically do not survive.

    The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.

    If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch.

    Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner.

    These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.

    Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony.

    Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful of the West to save Planet Earth?

    [Sep 01, 2016] Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
    "... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
    "... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
    "... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
    "... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:

    The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-stress-american-exceptionalism-ohio-41764569

    Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.

    Dick: " I'm with her! "
    Hillary: " Who knew? "

    http://tinyurl.com/jvaqryp

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Haha I am pretty sure that one does not force peace.

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America!

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me!

    [Aug 29, 2016] Polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue

    Notable quotes:
    "... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
    "... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants. ..."
    "... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
    "... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
    "... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
    "... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
    "... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago: ..."
    "... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win." ..."
    "... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies. During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up. One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.

    Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes, with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.

    It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.

    Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree. With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.

    –KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants.

    Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.

    They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.

    Synoia , March 7, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    intersectionality

    This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.

    The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant.

    DakotabornKansan , March 7, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Hillary is an intersectional feminist?

    As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago:

    "What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer ordinary working American women was another story.

    She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper, you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about micro­lending was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass every last individual on earth.

    Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win."

    https://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/

    Nuggets321 , March 7, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship to oppressive conditions.

    Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".

    RMO , March 7, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Trumpster Sends The GOP-Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster

    It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
    Notable quotes:
    "... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
    "... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
    "... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
    "... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
    "... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
    "... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
    "... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
    "... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
    "... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
    "... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
    "... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
    "... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
    "... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
    "... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
    "... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
    "... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
    "... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
    "... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
    "... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
    "... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
    "... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
    "... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
    "... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
    "... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
    davidstockmanscontracorner.com
    Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

    So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.

    At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

    They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

    Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.

    And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

    Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

    Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

    The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

    Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

    Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

    To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.

    Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm".

    Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.

    After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

    There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

    Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

    The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

    Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble.

    The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

    That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

    Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

    Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

    Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

    And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

    Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

    But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

    So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

    But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

    Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

    Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

    Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

    At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

    He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

    When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.

    Worse things could surely happen.

    bill5

    @Protogonus

    Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken

    The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. ... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken

    Amen!

    Rich Lancaster
    Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily.

    The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :)

    jimbob23

    David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.

    As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.

    I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war.

    Washington DC
    Rumor is Bloomberg is going to announce. As an Independent.
    Blackdog5555

    So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.

    There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO

    BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.

    We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed. I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.

    SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica" safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.

    There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.

    Don't you love history.

    Cheers.

    BD

    MPBadger

    You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers, on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding, stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate threat from Saddam was over.

    When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community. More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.

    zee_point

    As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.

    In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism.

    Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.

    Diacro222

    We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.

    cbaker0441

    Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east.

    CALARISTOS

    @lloydholiday I lived in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives a major headache, much like Europe.

    The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities (my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue. They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.

    Protogonus

    @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.

    CALARISTOS

    As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.

    bill5

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.

    If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt - ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.

    hmkdpm

    @bill5 What I never hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.

    cbaker0441

    @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.

    Mugsy7777

    All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in!

    @Mugsy7777

    He has his own plane, ground crew, flight crew, and body guards which I would guess make a heck of a lot more than the SS...Secret Service that is.

    I'm figuring the election will be rigged.

    @marcopolo2150 @Mugsy7777 one drone..........

    what a pathetic country America has become.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Whats a Neoconservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
    "... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
    "... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
    "... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
    "... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
    "... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
    "... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
    "... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
    "... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
    "... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
    "... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
    "... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
    "... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
    "... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
    "... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
    "... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
    "... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
    "... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
    "... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
    "... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
    "... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
    "... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
    "... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
    "... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
    "... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
    "... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
    "... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
    "... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

    The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.

    Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.

    ...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...

    ...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators."

    bc3b , June 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
    Easy Jack.

    Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.

    squib , June 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a handful of dust.

    The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans.

    Steve , June 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion, but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.

    On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons than is domestic policy.

    By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.

    tbraton , June 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
    "My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative" means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."

    One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

    Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

    Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:

    " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it."

    Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.

    Philip Giraldi, June 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.

    Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.

    I expect they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.

    ED. K., June 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars.
    eeyore , June 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry. Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
    Jane Marple , June 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart.
    Ben, Okla. City , June 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just.

    How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.

    Jack , June 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government.

    The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.

    The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.

    DirtyHarriet , June 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    Patrick J. gave a great definition in his Whose War article:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

    It's one of the best articles ever. TAC should re-run it from time to time, lest we all forget what it's all about.

    Buzz Baldrin , June 24, 2011 at 5:08 am
    Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.

    All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters.

    Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials, in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.

    Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.

    Nel , June 24, 2011 at 5:10 am
    A Neocon is a con artist.
    Robert Pinkerton , June 24, 2011 at 5:17 am
    Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.

    If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people, the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .

    Nebulosis , June 24, 2011 at 5:49 am
    "On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"

    True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met.

    samwitwicky , June 24, 2011 at 6:23 am
    Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that's a revolution.

    Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

    Read more:

    http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

    Bill R. , June 24, 2011 at 11:44 am
    Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities – including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.

    And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed, losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.

    It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.

    Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology, the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the Traitor. Up with the Star.

    James deLaurier , June 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Jack Hunter: 6/24/2011

    A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We the People"?

    Thank you – # 16

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

    "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns."

    One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some consise observations about him.

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:

    "No one who absorbs Vaďsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf.

    Vaďsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles." It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

    It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaďsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

    The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."

    The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon."

    Masood , June 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Should "the American Policeman" police the rogue state of Israel? I wonder how many neocons will fo for it.
    DirtyHarriet , June 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Masood, your post reminds me of an article that was published in the New York Times on September 10, 2001, of all dates.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78029147.html

    "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"

    Excerpt:

    The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.

    The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

    It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."

    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

    Henry Drummond , June 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
    This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles, the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.
    tbraton , June 25, 2011 at 9:48 am
    "You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."

    If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).

    Gil , June 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure, in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who became more hawkish on foreign policy.

    However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.

    They all supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.

    What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!

    Steve in Ohio , June 27, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.

    By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most non interventionist prez in recent history.

    Allen , June 28, 2011 at 5:32 am
    WE HAVE A WINNER!;
    'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Gil , June 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Steve-

    Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?

    Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint, and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%

    Wesley Mcgranor , June 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
    A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant civilization.
    Gil , June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    Wesley,

    You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals." However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?

    Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims- IS a Neoconservative.

    And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives because their ACTIONS define who they are.

    They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.

    Patrick , July 6, 2011 at 6:26 am
    What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.

    What I would consider true conservatism you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration, all in the name of "defending" the country.

    It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Obama is back to his old game: Assad should go

    Notable quotes:
    "... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100

    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch

    8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media

    Notable quotes:
    "... I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015 ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Curtis | Aug 27, 2016 3:46:24 PM | 98
    I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand).
    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

    Interesting that 72% say US Govt efforts against corruption are ineffective and 72% say the level of corruption increased from 2007 to 2010.
    http://www.transparency.org/country/#USA_PublicOpinion

    [Aug 27, 2016] Total State Or Total Freedom The 8 Marks Of Fascist Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations. ..."
    "... Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Llewllyn Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

    The most definitive study on fascism written in these years was As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn. Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books in the 1920s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism, while Flynn himself kept the old faith. That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was.

    As We Go Marching came out in 1944, just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of wartime economic controls the world over. It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: in militarism and war as the fulfillment of the stimulus spending agenda. When you run out of everything else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending.

    Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost everyone else chose to ignore. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.

    As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.

    Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.

    If you become directly ensnared in the state's web, you will quickly discover that there are indeed no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown, or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.

    No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing, household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." I submit to you that this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has been kidnapped by the fascist state.

    Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.

    I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.

    The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the policy of the executive. This executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge. The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic mandate." Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the money necessary to fund this executive rule.

    Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.

    The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy- whether in Mussolini's time or ours- requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity with a billion tiny cuts.

    So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded? It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise the police power to prevent us from living free lives.

    It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that don't exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.

    Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.

    Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.

    In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we've seen giant banks, pharmaceutical firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living a parasitical existence at our expense.

    Point 5. Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.

    Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population.

    Look at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We would be supremely naive to believe that these wars were not motivated in part by the producer interests of the oil industry. It is true of the American empire generally, which supports dollar hegemony. It is the reason for the North American Union.

    Point 6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.

    This point requires no elaboration because it is no longer hidden. In the latest round, and with a prime-time speech, Obama mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools, bridges, and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match up needed work with jobs.

    Hello? The schools, bridges, and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.

    As for the rest of this speech, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. But no government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much, and created as much fake money as the United States, all thanks to the power of the Fed to create money at will. If the United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.

    Point 7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.

    Have you ever noticed that the military budget is never seriously discussed in policy debates? The United States spends more than most of the rest of the world combined. And yet to hear our leaders talk, the United States is just a tiny commercial republic that wants peace but is constantly under threat from the world. Where is the debate about this policy? Where is the discussion? It is not going on. It is just assumed by both parties that it is essential for the US way of life that the United States be the most deadly country on the planet, threatening everyone with nuclear extinction unless they obey.

    Point 8. Military spending has imperialist aims.

    We've had one war after another, wars waged by the United States against noncompliant countries, and the creation of even more client states and colonies. US military strength has led not to peace but the opposite. It has caused most people in the world to regard the United States as a threat, and it has led to unconscionable wars on many countries. Wars of aggression were defined at Nuremberg as crimes against humanity.

    Obama was supposed to end this. He never promised to do so, but his supporters all believed that he would. Instead, he has done the opposite. He has increased troop levels, entrenched wars, and started new ones. In reality, he has presided over a warfare state just as vicious as any in history. The difference this time is that the Left is no longer criticizing the US role in the world. In that sense, Obama is the best thing ever to happen to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex.

    The Future

    I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization, those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.

    It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.

    How many people fall into this category? It is more than we know. The movement is intellectual. It is political. It is cultural. It is technological. They come from all classes, races, countries, and professions. This is no longer a national movement. It is truly global.

    And what does this movement want? Nothing more or less than sweet liberty. It does not ask that the liberty be granted or given. It only asks for the liberty that is promised by life itself and would otherwise exist were it not for the Leviathan state that robs us, badgers us, jails us, kills us.

    This movement is not departing. We are daily surrounded by evidence that it is right and true. Every day, it is more and more obvious that the state contributes absolutely nothing to our wellbeing; it massively subtracts from it.

    Back in the 1930s, and even up through the 1980s, the partisans of the state were overflowing with ideas. This is no longer true. Fascism has no new ideas, no big projects-and not even its partisans really believe it can accomplish what it sets out to do. The world created by the private sector is so much more useful and beautiful than anything the state has done that the fascists have themselves become demoralized and aware that their agenda has no real intellectual foundation.

    It is ever more widely known that statism does not and cannot work. Statism is the great lie. Statism gives us the exact opposite of its promise. It promised security, prosperity, and peace; it has given us fear, poverty, war, and death. If we want a future, it is one that we have to build ourselves. The fascist state will not give it to us. On the contrary, it stands in the way.

    In the end, this is the choice we face: the total state or total freedom. Which will we choose? If we choose the state, we will continue to sink further and further and eventually lose all that we treasure as a civilization. If we choose freedom, we can harness that remarkable power of human cooperation that will enable us to continue to make a better world.

    In the fight against fascism, there is no reason to be despairing. We must continue to fight with every bit of confidence that the future belongs to us and not them.

    Their world is falling apart. Ours is just being built.Their world is based on bankrupt ideologies. Ours is rooted in the truth about freedom and reality. Their world can only look back to the glory days. Ours looks forward to the future we are building for ourselves.

    Their world is rooted in the corpse of the nation-state. Our world draws on the energies and creativity of all peoples in the world, united in the great and noble project of creating a prospering civilization through peaceful human cooperation. We possess the only weapon that is truly immortal: the right idea. It is this that will lead to victory.

    Future Jim -> NidStyles Aug 27, 2016 9:15 PM

    "All of the leftists out themselves by stating Communists are Fascists."

    I have only heard leftists vehemently deny that communists are fascists. I have never heard a leftist say that communists are fascists. Do you have a link?

    BTW, what could possibly be more fascist than re-education camps?

    http://www.endofinnocence.com/2012/05/fascism-explained.html

    Handful of Dust LN Aug 27, 2016 8:21 PM
    John T Flynn's entire book is online at the Mises Institute in pdf form:

    https://mises.org/system/tdf/As%20We%20Go%20Marching_2.pdf?file=1&type=d...

    NidStyles d KickIce •Aug 27, 2016 8:45 PM
    The State is that which is controlled by the nation in question. A Government is not the state, nor is it the nation. A government is a secular organization emplaced to impose a set of rules that benefit one nation over all other under the same government.

    The failure of the west is not that it allows any one given state to control the power, but that it allows secular governments dominante and forcibly submit all nations to it's demands by a foreign nation. The argument against the state is one that decries the European dominance in the US. It's an anti-European control in European created countries narrative.

    The state that is allowed to exist and hold power within the US is not the state of her citizens or the nations they consist of. It is a foreign state claiming rightful sovereignty through both economic terrorist and threats of force and active persecution.

    The US has been under the rule of a global criminal cartel for decades now. That cartel is a nation onto it's own, and it uses deception, propaganda and economic means to hide it's existence. It is successful because it controls the media, which is the largest propaganda outlet to have ever been devised. It can chose whom to promote and whom to deny the right to exist. We are at this very moment reading an article from one of it's propaganda arms on a site controlled by a different proganda arm that it also controls.

    [Aug 27, 2016] While Obama fiddles ... -

    Krauthammer is probably the most gifted neocon propagandist. Kind of Joseph Goebbels of neocons (I know, I know). But despite his considerable and undisputable gifts as a propagandist, I can't read him without a shoot of Stoli. He is so predictably jingoistic that sometimes I think he was hired by Putin to destroy any semblance of rational thinking in Washington establishment. An interesting question is what he drinks to write such articles.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad). ..."
    "... In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them. ..."
    "... These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief. ..."
    Feb 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    spkpost, 2/28/2016 2:37 PM EST

    In the South China Sea, China is doing it's China thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.

    In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad).

    In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.

    In Iran, the Iranians are doing what any sovereign nation would do when threatened by outside forces (i.e. Israel and the US)- arm themselves in order to create a deterrent to invasion or worse. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them, destroy the deterrent, and invade.

    As far as Cuba is concerned, bomb them too (I guess).

    These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the USA

    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    David : , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:05 PM
    Do I like Greg Mankiw's positions? No. But he and others of his ilk are at least sane and intelligent, and certainly not "white nationalists" (dog whistle: racists).

    There are some many progressive people here who perhaps aren't impressed with a lot of these economists or HRC.

    First off, there is only one practical goal: push HRC to more progressive positions.

    Second, elect and support progressives down the ballot.

    Nihilism is an easy pose. Changing the world, a bit harder.

    likbez -> David ... August 26, 2016 at 08:42 PM , August 26, 2016 at 08:42 PM
    It's not that simple.

    Like in 20th neoliberalism created the fertile soil for far right.

    So, in a way, those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the USA.

    You just need to see how this played in Europe to see the writing on the wall. Boiling anger at neoliberal globalization, stagnation or dramatic decline of family income (over 50 and unemployed phenomena), growing debt, and loss of jobs (and perspectives) is a dangerous, explosive mix.

    Externality if you like, that neoliberals did not took into account with all their rush to extract profits whenever they can (vampire squid behavior is a neoliberal paradigm).

    As Matt Tabbi aptly said "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." The problem is that this is a standard neoliberal behavior and in no way it is limited to GS.

    Putting a large part of the US population against the wall of poverty (there is another country within the USA -- a third world county inhabited by Wall-Mart workers, single mothers and like) was deliberate, government supported, and a very destructive action. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reported that as of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual food stamp recipients (22.7 million households).

    Now they might need to pay the price.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Deep States Catch-22

    www.oftwominds.com

    August 16, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression? The system it feeds on decays and collapses.

    Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.

    The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.

    The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.

    The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth and power that defines the elite.

    So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.

    What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions, wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political, social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.

    Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever factions they see as the source of instability.

    The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme wealth/power inequality.

    Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Notable quotes:
    "... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
    "... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
    "... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
    "... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.

    The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

    globinfo freexchange

    A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market.

    The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

    Key parts:

    Full letter:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013

    Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can.

    Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 25, 2016] Farage at Trump rally: I wouldnt vote for Clinton if you paid me

    Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
    Notable quotes:
    "... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
    "... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
    "... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
    "... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
    "... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
    "... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
    "... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    philipsiron 46m ago
    I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
    shockrah 54m ago
    The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally racist. T

    here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T

    hey will, in the absence of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.

    Wynberg 1h ago
    Dear Dorothy,

    My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
    Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
    Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
    Signed:
    Confused

    Answer..
    Dear Confused:
    Grow up and dump him.
    You don't need him anymore!
    Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!

    stoneshepherd 44m ago
    People here seem to be posting without thinking things through. Do they really want another Clinton in the White House? Especially this warmonger?

    Maybe they should try a dose of reality and read John Pilger's op ed over here https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356846-provoking-nuclear-war-media /

    We shouldn't be sleepwalking into another disastrous war just to please the shareholders and CEOs of the major armament manufacturing companies.

    [PS Please read Pilger's op ed before trolling this post]

    SerbCanada Ulmus Glabra 1h ago
    Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President.

    Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.

    unlywnted kieran2698 1h ago

    After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.

    thinlizzie mkevinf 1h ago
    Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue). It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.

    I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time. We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!

    Maitreya2016 MrIncredlous 1h ago
    Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
    DanBlues 3h ago
    Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.

    Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!

    musolen 3h ago

    ... ... ...

    Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.

    ... ... ...

    Karega 3h ago
    I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?" Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
    Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter in the race for White House.

    Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!

    MelindaHaye 3h ago

    Alternative media is so valuable.

    The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is her crowds are tiny. You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.

    It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-VzSG-2oYI

    Lots of people are releasing stuff on this topic.

    Wobbly 4h ago
    Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
    camcitizen 4h ago
    Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be friends.
    inquisitor16 4h ago

    Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.

    It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?

    Sailinghomeo 4h ago
    Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.

    The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...

    [Aug 25, 2016] Neoliberal Obama pushes for TPP/TTIP/TISA

    Notable quotes:
    "... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
    "... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    "[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico]. "While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!

    "Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz, New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."

    CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [Mother Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.

    "When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Scaring voters with Putin is the cornerstone of Hillary electron campaign

    She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,' Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state (Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance," so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)

    UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more opportunities exist for violations'" [The Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them, none of this would be happening.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Bill Kristol Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew

    Breitbart
    Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state. One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.

    Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators. He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq. Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.

    As for Trump proposing "another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.

    "Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability throughout the region.

    "Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very unprincipled - and careless - individual.

    All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.

    I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Tragic mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
    "... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
    "... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
    "... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
    Aug 24, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:12 am
    MH17 – сбили по "ошибке"

    In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.

    Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake.

    What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 5:13 am
    Over to you, Secretary of State Kerry…
    marknesop , August 23, 2016 at 10:43 am
    Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could be anyone.

    It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless.

    Moscow Exile , August 23, 2016 at 12:22 pm
    But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?

    The translation reads:

    Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives…

    Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .

    [Aug 21, 2016] Ukraine Releases More Details on Payments for Trump Aide, Paul Manafort

    What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
    "... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
    "... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
    "... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
    "... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
    Aug 18, 2016 | The New York Times

    MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J. Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.

    The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.

    The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.

    Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.

    Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.

    The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded the nonprofit.

    The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate, Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.

    Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved. The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.

    The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."

    Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.

    Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services such as exit polling, equipment and other services.

    On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period.

    In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said.

    Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."

    Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a legitimate campaign outlay.

    Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer server.

    The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.

    Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts votes.


    Correction: August 20, 2016

    Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych. Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

    Notable quotes:
    "... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
    On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

    The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

    The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

    But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

    The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

    So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

    The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

    A Memorable SECONDDATE

    The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

    Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

    The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

    The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

    All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

    .

    After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

    Where SECONDDATE Fits In

    This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

    According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

    One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

    That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

    The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

    To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

    Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

    In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

    SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

    A Potentially Mundane Hack

    Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

    Documents

    Documents published with this story:

    [Aug 20, 2016] No, Ambassador McFaul Putin Didnt Order Me to Fall in Love with Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
    "... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
    "... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
    "... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
    "... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
    "... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
    "... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
    "... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!

    My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns, and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.

    It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.

    So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.

    On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.

    I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.

    Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.

    Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.

    Our outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.

    In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.

    It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.

    Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently, Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.

    The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?

    There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans, like so many others in this country, wish they would.

    Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.

    The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.

    In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.

    Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.

    We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.

    And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher, but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.

    But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers traitors to this country.

    That, I personally, expect an apology for.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Hillarys Neoconservatives

    Aug 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.

    The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.

    Jane Sanders, wife of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector, publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own pushback, including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives not to fret.

    ... ... ...

    Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents, co-signed a June report with Michčle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria, a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.

    Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative. Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.

    Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise, heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.

    So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 6 Problems With Medias Reaction To Trumps ISIS Comments

    This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal propaganda works.
    This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
    "... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
    "... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
    "... Washington Examiner ..."
    "... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
    "... Vanity Fair ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | thefederalist.com

    Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard.

    Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush. He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq. Trump said to Dickerson:

    Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

    Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of what he did."

    Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe."

    And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump easily won the South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.

    Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's complete meltdown over the remarks.

    1. Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?

      Republicans who oppose Trump claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.

      As the Washington Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:

      'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign rally in Mississippi.

      Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'

      He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'

      Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.

    2. Hyperliteralism

      Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience, but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.

      So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.

      Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...

      The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give him a Pants On Fire rating.

      Even ABC News had a piece headlined, "Obama Is Not the 'Founder' of ISIS – These Guys Are." Nobody can be this stupid, not even our media.

      As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically, this tweet is worth considering:

    3. Failure to Do Due Diligence

      On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald Trump was super serial about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales to launch his new organization ISIS.

      Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is the 'founder of Isis'."

      You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this narrative is.

      Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.

      First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check: Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS. Trump says:

      DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

      Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.

      Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake? Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:

      HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what I would say.

      DT: Well, I disagree.

      HH: All right, that's okay.

      DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.

      HH: That's

      DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.

      HH: That's true.

      DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

      HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.

      DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

      Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.

      No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover it.

    4. Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal

      People accuse their political opponents of being responsible for bad things all the time. Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:

      Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with the terror group. President Obama said he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck, so did President Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't pretend it's unique to Trump.


    5. Missing Actual Problems with His Comments

      Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments. He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed something much more problematic with Trump's comments.

      Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.

      'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.' (Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.

      But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later 2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.

      Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.

    6. We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy

      Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina rewarded him with a victory.

      Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

      Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly managed instead of actually dealt with.

      Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it. Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided, aimless efforts there.

      The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

    [Aug 19, 2016] Whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am 87

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    [Aug 19, 2016] Historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone

    Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism, is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
    Notable quotes:
    "... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
    "... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.12.16 at 3:45 pm

    Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even be a lame duck till November.

    Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally a Democrat.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered (or didn't.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests.

    (Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless, the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)

    Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.

    Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissingers endorsement.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa."

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    I'm actually beginning to welcome the "we've never had someone as bad as Trump before" meme. I can't think of a greater (and deliciously unintentional) indictment of the United States than that claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680#ixzz4GklOFXfV 441

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:02 pm

    Greg's actually just written an excellent piece on the abomination that is Henry Kissinger and Clinton's attempt to secure his endorsement.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

    LFC 08.09.16 at 5:07 pm 442
    A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz, and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing her.

    The Temporary Name 08.09.16 at 5:09 pm

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters.

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:13 pm 445

    It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic, pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this is cynicism anymore; she believes it.

    Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says here, Trump will be squashed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

    [Aug 18, 2016] After I donated $9600 to Obama's campaigns, I got seven White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama. These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Layman, 08.11.16 at 2:19 pm

    engels @ 595

    That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.

    These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
    "... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
    "... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
    "... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
    "... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
    "... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.09.16 at 3:46 pm

    Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right. Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support. That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.

    In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.

    The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.

    And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.

    Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.

    It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes to China" moment. I have no idea why.

    Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted. As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how votes are counted.

    The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president

    Notable quotes:
    "... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
    "... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:00 am 669

    @ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."

    "But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."

    So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be in the Oval Office.

    And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.

    Fair enough.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-im-a-better-intelligence-briefer-than-my-intelligence-briefers/

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:39 am 671

    @670 "I won't even look up the quote"

    Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff of legend to the clueless, of course.

    How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty.

    My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.

    And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.

    Trump in 2016!

    [Aug 16, 2016] Diary of an Ex-Neocon

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
    "... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
    "... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
    "... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
    "... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
    The American Conservative
    McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud. Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush, he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."

    If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length, and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."

    Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened, as McConnell chronicles in detail.

    The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated: as McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport, it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact.

    They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."

    Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form. But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.

    In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in " Divided and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

    That critique is laid out in a long essay, " The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so.

    At the end of a long " Open Letter to David Horowitz on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost, he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely, disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts reader a dozen years before that."

    For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through in a way that is understated and yet strong. Here he is in Virginia Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers, two black and one white:

    It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are all connected.

    So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run, and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really have to read this book to find out.

    Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement .

    [Aug 16, 2016] The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop , August 14, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    The ECHR has, on the other hand, green-lighted the lawsuits of MH-17 relatives against Ukraine , for "Failing to protect life" by taking the appropriate precautions to vector air traffic away from the war zone.

    Which means Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility for its own airspace.

    Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.

    [Aug 16, 2016] 3 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jeremn, August 15, 2016 at 7:07 am

    Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically, the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the Malaysian flight was coming down.

    "The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."

    https://energia.su/mh17/en/article/1/

    marknesop, August 15, 2016 at 10:20 am
    Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.

    [Aug 15, 2016] US War Crimes or 'Normalized Deviance' by Nicolas J S Davies

    After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
    "... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
    "... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. ..."
    "... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime." ..."
    "... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences. ..."
    "... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence. ..."
    "... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones. ..."
    "... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
    "... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
    "... Left In The Dark ..."
    "... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old. ..."
    "... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
    "... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War ..."
    "... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface. ..."
    "... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law." ..."
    "... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
    "... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
    consortiumnews.com
    August 15, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance," writes Nicolas J S Davies.

    Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.

    Vaughan published her findings in her prize-winning book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA , which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."

    President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

    When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board, which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor in these catastrophic failures.

    The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional failures, from Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign policy.

    The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually by much of the public at large.

    Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA, there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.

    Normalizing the Abnormal

    It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the past.

    This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability, but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.

    At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."

    Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.

    For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings," or "manhunts" as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing prohibitions against assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.

    Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .

    Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them, but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security." These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.

    The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law.

    Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

    The United Nations Charter

    In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.

    As President Franklin Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed."

    The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime."

    No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.

    President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.

    The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action "to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.

    The wars we have launched since 2001 have killed about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country into unending violence and chaos.

    Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force, in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.

    In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a rug in the State Department basement.

    The Geneva Conventions

    Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:

    –The Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that U.S. law defines as capital crimes .

    Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence.

    –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.

    A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.

    Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.

    More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either.

    Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability for war crimes.

    The Cold War and Its Aftermath

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.

    But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against the U.S.S.R.

    General Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."

    But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a "military-industrial complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately, Eisenhower lamented, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well as I do."

    That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy, the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and lobbying firms.

    Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to the public.

    With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial interests.

    The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly as Eisenhower warned.

    Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.

    In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and Vietnam into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S. creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.

    The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface.

    The Reagan Years

    It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to terrorize its people, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.

    The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.

    When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."

    President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation."

    But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

    Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a "power dividend" sought by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century led the push for war on Iraq, while "humanitarian interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns, safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an "accountability-free zone."

    Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own genocidal sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague, he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.

    In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization, Albright told him he should "get new lawyers."

    By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly marginalized.

    Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't approve of what has happened."

    But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion, targeting Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.

    When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.

    A Sociopathic Culture

    Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.

    President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)

    This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability or even catastrophic failure.

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.

    As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.

    Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

    "For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

    [Aug 14, 2016] An Urgent History Lesson in Diplomacy with Russia

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    [Aug 14, 2016] The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
    "... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
    "... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
    "... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
    "... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    F. E. Dec, 8 hours ago

    The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets. (The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.

    Bill, 7 hours ago

    Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.

    The report said "There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS.

    Al, 14 hours ago

    When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.

    The world would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.

    Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...

    [Aug 13, 2016] One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance

    Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump contest.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
    "... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
    "... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
    "... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
    "... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
    "... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
    "... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
    "... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
    "... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    May 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Kevin P Brown Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39

    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:

    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%

    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.

    luminog simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    Kevin P Brown Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!

    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.
    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy.

    Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party left me ..."
    "... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The Intercept].

    The party left me

    "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.

    Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"

    [Thomas Edsall, New York Times]. Citing this tweet:

    [Aug 12, 2016] Longing for a strong hand

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a 'good' or 'very good' thing for the 'army to rule'-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen. In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree. While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who favor a 'strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections' and those who want experts rather than the government to 'take decisions' for the country.

    Nor is the United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. … Lower support for democracy seems especially high among younger adults." [ Conversable Economist ] ( original ).

    I'm sure that for many Trump will spring to mind, but it's also noteworthy that the Democrat nomenklatura just spent a solid year stamping out a movement that was struggling for democratic norms through the electoral process . Not perhaps the best of tactics, if a healthy democracy, as opposed to a well-funded Democrat Party, is your goal.

    [Aug 10, 2016] Neocon Nightmare The Truth Behind the Attacks on Chuck Hagel by Arianna Huffington

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Week with George Stephanopoulos. ..."
    "... America: Our Next Chapter ..."
    "... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
    "... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
    Mar 17, 2013 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him -- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.

    The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

    "I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."

    Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing" and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been called into question.

    But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some of it for distribution."

    In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook quoted an email from a senior administration official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already been plenty of competition for that title.

    Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job, he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record, nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.

    Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast," he said in 2002, "but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapter he writes that he voted to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts," and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."

    And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:

    As I wrote back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest of the country. As Senator Jack Reed said of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.

    "When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel said in 2006, "of how we went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."

    And that kind of thinking is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder, not that he needs one, of what war is really like.

    "Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel pointed out the fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."

    The president added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind -- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."

    And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg put it, "The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute."

    He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was, and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it (badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.

    Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?

    It's not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter called Hagel's nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.

    A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham contrasted Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there, it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it since then, right?

    The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

    Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work, per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation, says, adding, "Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."

    A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick put it,

    Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems entirely random.
    Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"

    He's referring to the fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he also said that use of reductivist buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means of making it better.

    But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard, offers as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged: Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists -- have come forward to counter that allegation."

    Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch, who, according to the Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel, when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."

    What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this. In response, a CFR official told Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib writes:
    Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that, Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
    Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."

    A nightmare for some but a welcome change for the country. This week, HuffPost is launching a new series focusing on President Obama's second term called "The Road Forward: Obama's Second Term Challenges."

    In the first installment, Howard Fineman writes that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough to turn great promise into true greatness."

    We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves, hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.

    Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

    [Aug 10, 2016] Lying Neocon War Propagandist of the Week by Thomas DiLorenzo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jewish World Review ..."
    December 28, 2015 | www.lewrockwell.com

    There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in Jewish World Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in Russia.

    George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S. kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the hundreds of thousands. This includes at least 200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S. military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago. (Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).

    And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos is.

    5:35 pm on December 28, 2015 Email Thomas DiLorenzo

    [Aug 09, 2016] They knew nothing about the coup in Turkey! - Defend Democracy Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
    "... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
    "... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    The US Ambassador to Ankara explains why his country knew nothing about what was going to happen in Turkey

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-us-planning-support-knowledge-in-coup-attempt-in-turkey-ambassador.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102529&NewsCatID=510

    In the meantime Austrian and German politicians compare the coup in Turkey with the Reichstag fire in 1933. But they don't know who set the fire

    https://www.rt.com/news/354909-austria-germany-nazi-turkey/

    A leftist politician in Germany wants sanctions against Turkey

    http://www.thelocal.de/20160802/left-party-politician-calls-for-sanctions-against-turkey

    According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.

    According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening. They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders".

    Radicals around Erdogan call for war "against Crusaders"

    The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO.

    We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.

    Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington to take its decisions.

    D.K.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Fantastic progress of democracy New York Times barely notice the new war in Libya! by Adam H. Johnson

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    [Aug 08, 2016] The communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China

    Blowback for sleazy Barack Obama neocon policies is coming. And it will not be pretty...
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.

    July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia. "

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/china-openly-offers-russia-alliance.html

    If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity; its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse. Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything that may separate them.

    And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves. The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values, and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.

    [Aug 08, 2016] In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 8:06 am

    Least we forget what the British empire was about then:

    In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.

    Stating the historical record so plainly is shocking - but it's true, and the consequences of that act are still being felt today.

    https://warisboring.com/to-understand-chinese-expansionism-look-to-the-opium-wars-fc96e2bba94#.3h4zarnzv

    Unlike a fine wine, there is no reason (or proof) that the British Empire has improved with age.

    yalensis , August 7, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    From Charles Dickens "Our Mutual Friend", the heroine Bella Wilfer is fantasizing about her beloved Papa becoming a rich opium trader:

    "Now Pa was going to China in that handsome three-masted ship, to bring home opium, with which he would forever cut out Chicksey, Veneering, and Stobble, and to bring home silks and shawls without end for the decoration of his charming daughter."

    Cortes , August 7, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    Most of the traffickers were (possibly still are?) fine upstanding Scottish Presbyterians.

    Jardine, Matheson et cetera.

    [Aug 07, 2016] The key idea behind MH17 provocation was neutralizing a threat for a determined time frame, taking them down politically and promote more pliable actors

    In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface, the necessary effect was already achieved.
    Notable quotes:
    "... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
    "... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen , August 6, 2016 at 4:56 am

    Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17: you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
    et Al , August 6, 2016 at 7:48 am
    Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable actors.

    MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber.

    Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Commentary The worlds best cyber army doesn't belong to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
    "... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
    "... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
    "... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
    "... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
    "... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
    "... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
    Aug 4, 2016 | Reuters
    National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.

    The United States is, by far, the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.

    There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies through eavesdropping and other espionage.

    Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar, with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked, shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.

    NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

    Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office.

    And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star admiral, Michael S. Rogers.

    Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot, $896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.

    In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."

    The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents. One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."

    The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace" just as "today we dominate air and space."

    Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.

    One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.

    While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.

    One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.

    Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.

    Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

    In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment, in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.

    Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.

    (James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)

    [Aug 06, 2016] Vladimir Putin Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
    "... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
    "... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | theantimedia.org

    (ANTIMEDIA) As the United States continues to develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate, America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin that Russia will respond as necessary.

    In his most recent attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    "We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know," he said.

    Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved instrumental in reaching an agreement with Iran that should put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.

    The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:

    "They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system."

    This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently in Romania.

    Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.

    "How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"

    Putin stated.

    Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.

    Following George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.

    Putin warned:

    "Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.

    Under the guise of following an anti-nuclear weapons policy, the Obama administration has announced plans for a $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan, which - let's face it - is targeted at Russia.

    Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin, "the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."

    There is no winner in a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. This has been not only confirmed but repeatedly warned about by atomic scientists who - if we are being honest - are the people whose opinion on this topic should matter the most.

    It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter the path we are on. As Albert Einstein famously stated:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    This article (Vladimir Putin Just Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to [email protected].

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism The truth behind the toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." ..."
    "... In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it. ..."
    "... What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." ..."
    "... Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government. ..."
    "... The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org. ..."
    "... Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked. ..."
    "... During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today. ..."
    "... In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today. ..."
    "... Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy. ..."
    "... The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... "There was no 'overthrow.'" ..."
    "... I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held. ..."
    "... one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.' ..."
    "... It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS. ..."
    www.salon.com

    "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." So advised world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited thinkers in human history.

    The counsel may sound simple and intuitive - that's because it is. But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. ignores it.

    Saudi Arabia is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy that governs based on an extreme interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law). It is so extreme, it has been widely compared to ISIS. Algerian journalist Kamel Daoud characterized Saudi Arabia in an op-ed in The New York Times as "an ISIS that has made it."

    "Black Daesh, white Daesh," Daoud wrote, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity's common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia."

    "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on."

    In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it.

    Whether elements within Saudi Arabia support ISIS is contested. Even if Saudi Arabia does not directly support or fund ISIS, however, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to the extremist ideology ISIS preaches.

    What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

    Supporters of the Saudi monarchy resist comparisons to ISIS. The regime itself threatened to sue social media users who compared it to ISIS. Apologists point out that ISIS and Saudi Arabia are enemies. This is indeed true. But this is not necessarily because they are ideologically different (they are similar) but rather because they threaten each other's power.

    There can only be one autocrat in an autocratic system; ISIS' self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refuses to kowtow to present Saudi King Salman, and vice-versa. After all, the Saudi absolute monarch partially justifies his rule through claiming that it has been blessed and ordained by God, and if ISIS' caliph insists the same, they can't both be right.

    Some American politicians have criticized the U.S.-Saudi relationship for these very reasons. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has been perhaps the most outspoken critic. Graham has called extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support."

    ... ... ...

    Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government.

    The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org.

    Whatever its role, what is clear is that Saudi Arabia's support for violent extremist groups is well documented. Such support continues to this very day. In Syria, the Saudi monarchy has backed al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. The U.S. government has bombed al-Nusra, but its ally Saudi Arabia is funding it.

    Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked.

    ... ... ...

    During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today.

    In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today.

    The Saudi monarchy presents itself as modernized, yet it is still feudal in essence. There is almost no developed civil society in Saudi Arabia, because the regime has made all independent institutionalized forms of dissent illegal.

    Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy.

    ... ... ...

    If it is truly interested in stopping terrorism, then, the U.S. and the rest of the West will heed Chomsky's advice. The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia.

    Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

    Publicola,

    @RobertSF claims without evidence:

    "There was no 'overthrow.'"

    CIA documents directly contradict your claim.

    ----------------------------

    CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

    Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq

    Monday 19 August 2013

    The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

    On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

    "The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

    The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6...

    Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

    The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

    (emphasis mine)

    T Kosciuszko,

    {The Nixon administration created a "Twin Pillars" Middle East policy, in which the U.S.-backed monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Iran were considered pillars of stability. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew Iran's first and only democratically elected head of state, Mohammad Mosaddegh}

    That is a rather odd correlation -- Mr. Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 -- 20 yrs after the CIA/MI6 (Mossad was likely lurking, too) toppled Mr. Mosaddegh.

    The Nixon effect stems from Mr. Kissinger's amorous connection -- he made love to Saudi Arabia, and they had a child named Petro-$. It was the birth of the greatest financial con in Human history.

    If one has a grasp of the nature of the Supreme Power behind that curtain, the events unfolding in the world right now, make much sense.

    Helmey91,

    I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held.

    They were successful in starting an armed revolution against of the Kyrgis government in 2010 in this otherwise peaceful country where Muslims and non-Muslims had coexisted for years in peace and harmony. (During my visit, I even had a Muslim business owner thank George Bush during my visit for our USAID support - I was shocked. Muslims are not the enemy. Extremists and authoritarian governments like SA are. They don't want the two cultures to mix.)

    Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest opponent to peace in the Middle East.

    al loomis,

    one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.'

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

    asynchronicity,

    It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS.

    walkingmountain,

    Until the problem of Saudi Arabia is solved, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved. We thought we could go in the back door by changing Iraq, but we only made things worse. Take away the oil and we would have invaded after 9/11.
    The royal family is basically paying off the radicals to leave them, and their wealth, alone.

    ELYDOG 5ptsFeatured

    Americans have to accept that fact that the U.S. and other western governments prefer fundamentalism - which sells us oil - to democracy, socialism or Arab nationalism. It loves a good theocracy. These really are feudal regimes.

    In Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Iraq and now Syria, the U.S. and its allies have DIRECTLY funded Al Quada and its offshoots. Much of the weaponry sent from Libya to Syria for 'secular freedom fighters' ended up in the hands of Daesh. The U.S. has worked to crush partially secular regimes over and over again, even using the early Islamic Hamas fundamentalists in Palestine against the PLO, DFLP, PFLP etc. Before that they undermined Nasser, Mossedegh, and ANY left nationalists in sight.

    All for oil. It is still the oil barons and the militarists that back the Saudis and this will not change until the US. government is undermined itself.

    mwcarlton 5ptsFeatured

    These issues are being debated over on MIchael Totten's web site.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/saudi-iranian-eruption

    For once I fear I am in full agreement with Ben Norton.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Free cookies……the Clinton-Nuland-Obama legacy – Jackpine Radicals

    jackpineradicals.com

    In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.

  • Thanks to US funding they continue to march on…….

    Clarity of Signal

  • Neocon Nuland, spouse of Hillary's neocon buddy, Kagan, signer of the PNAC

    sabrina

  • And things like this are why is is hopelessly naive and playing right

    djean111

  • [Aug 05, 2016] Neocons and Liberal Interventionists -- Like Hillary -- Are Converging on Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
    "... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Earlier on WorldPost: ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS are themselves Sunni Muslims.

    To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent op-ed :

    The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander ... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond, it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
    In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.

    But let that pass. This narrative, echoed widely beyond the Financial Times , is Orwellian in another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as Jim Lobe notes , the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection is the subject of a May 16 report from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions with invited experts.

    Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail.'
    It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the country's foreign policy."

    The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony - or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's interview with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned, echoes of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.

    The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply restates in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the " American Century " and U.S.-led unipolar world order.

    What does this have to do with propagating the meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider this from the report (italics mine):

    The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military, economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.

    The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant U.S. military drawdown from the region. On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. As such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are not present or immediately available to assist.

    We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
    The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of cultural and militant Wahhabism has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."

    Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."

    The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
    Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize." Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.

    This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine, evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.

    This new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security, and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by its play in the media.

    It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional - sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should this policy be any more successful next time around?

    ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
    It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy, it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.

    So what is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran and fight Hezbollah .

    Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham, another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly notes , "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."

    Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming election? Possibly, yes.

    But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay of the past is not tenable.

    Earlier on WorldPost:

    [Aug 05, 2016] Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland by Wayne MADSEN

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
    "... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
    "... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
    18.12.2013 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

    Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

    With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

    Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

    But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

    Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.

    Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

    Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club

    [Aug 05, 2016] Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in

    US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
    "... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
    "... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
    "... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
    "... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Paul Wolfowitz is leaning Clinton. Nuff said.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State, but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that?

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble!

    I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit. Foreign Policy :

    Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.

    But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton connection. My bad!

    Carla , August 4, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!

    John k , August 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
    Hugoodanode?

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.

    If Nuland was a Republican, we would know.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Obama's Failed Foreign Policy Change The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
    "... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
    "... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
    "... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
    "... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
    "... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.

    President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.

    That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq, both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding, seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.

    Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations, Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.

    What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding ISIS.

    Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."

    Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order."

    Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.

    And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.

    The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national security views within the administration, which brings us to Victoria Nuland. Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.

    A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S. policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

    Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine."

    In 2009 President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.

    Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department. It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clinton's Hawk-in-Waiting The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    May 19, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.

    The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

    But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views deserve a closer look.

    Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers. He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.

    Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law, Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors. The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.

    The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.

    For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines, and Somalia.

    And Nuland herself, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John McCain.

    Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for using foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said (referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was intercepted and leaked, possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done the job.

    The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked "Russian aggression."

    Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED, called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.

    And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014, she noted how the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."

    Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably, initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and her allies.

    Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton dutifully compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention, producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American dominance in the world. The New York Times revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked for.

    As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield cost for Putin," Nuland commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"

    To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region while telling a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in Cyprus and France discussing "a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."

    But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November. And wondering where she might be going in January.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 03, 2016] Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80s and 90s) that also funded ISIS in Syria.

    www.theguardian.com

    doublreed -> legalimmigrant

    DryBack, Voilŕ: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/

    Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015.


    rberger -> doublreed

    Lame. When Clinton worked as a lawyer, she did some legal work for Lafarge. She later said on the board. This was in 1991. The so-called association with ISIS happened in 2014. Clinton did not take $100,000 from the company. The company donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which is a non-profit organization and not a cent goes to Clinton.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Israel to US Give Us More! by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
    "... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
    "... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
    "... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
    "... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
    original.antiwar.com
    August 03, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Washington is preparing to increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants more. Much more.

    Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to start paying for their own defense (although with him, you never know what his position is from one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause: a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President – whoever that may be – will lower it.

    The Israelis currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.

    So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The New York Times is reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and immunizing it from any cuts.

    Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue: the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s, when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but, according to Ha'aretz :

    "The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."

    If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House.

    In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?

    What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple. It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep Haim Saban happy.

    As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring.

    What in the heck is going on here?

    We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true.

    The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first.

    What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
    "... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
    "... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
    "... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
    "... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
    "... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
    "... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
    "... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
    "... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
    "... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
    "... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
    "... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
    "... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
    "... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
    "... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
    "... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
    "... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
    "... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
    "... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
    "... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
    "... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
    "... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
    "... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
    "... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
    "... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
    "... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
    "... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
    "... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
    "... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    varyat

    Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage. Shame.

    macmarco

    Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.

    US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge and intertwine.

    Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship at all costs.

    notindoctrinated

    Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:

    1. Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast, the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
    2. Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.

    Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's finger will never be far from the nuke-button.

    Lee Van Over -> notindoctrinated

    1. This will not happen, please see below.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

    2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.

    3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also, she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p


    Sam3456

    I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."

    Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq War.

    Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?

    JohnManyjars

    Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.

    R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars

    Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.


    Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars

    Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They, unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.


    John Smith

    Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
    April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board

    Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the G. W. Bush presidency

    Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter

    Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,

    And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in a tax haven!

    The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle: "... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.

    Blatant yankee cronyism beyond words! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

    Joe Biden's son was booted from the military after failing a drug test, it was revealed Thursday.

    Hunter Biden, the youngest son of the vice president, was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February after he tested positive for cocaine, the Navy said.
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-of-the-navy-after-failing-cocaine-test/

    John Smith

    This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.''

    And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!

    he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!

    MtnClimber -> John Smith

    They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.

    You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?

    Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to see from them?

    John Smith -> MtnClimber

    there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still alive n well..
    the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!

    annberk

    It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle. Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower. I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)

    Sam3456

    I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war.

    delphicvi

    What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.

    Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for a Trump Tower near Red Square."

    Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia. And Russia is not Ukraine.

    Sam3456

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.

    "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

    John Smith -> Sam3456

    Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything on Russia..
    clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??

    ''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

    The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a "significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," according to the report.'' http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/07/6-billion-went-missing-hillary-clintons-state-departmentwhere-did-money-go

    I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count for something!

    sejong -> John Smith

    Clinton: corruption you can believe in.

    John Smith
    So again...
    what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
    Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a team to stop it?
    Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of retirement for this??
    Having failed this gun running operation...
    They then went to Plan B..
    ''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!...... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html

    But When they arrived in Jordan..

    ''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=1
    So who did those weapons go to if not legit Rebel Syrians... I can only think of one other organisation..ISIS

    Then we have the $500,000,000 to train 54 rebel Syrians to fight Assad.
    do we really think the US military or special forces are that dumb?

    ''The Pentagon's $500 million (Ł300 million) Turkey-based training programme has fallen well short of expectations. Announced in June 2014 as Isil seized swathes of Iraq, it took almost a year to get off the ground and had until recently produced only 54 out of the 5,000 fighters it had intended to train within a year.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11878048/75-US-trained-rebels-enter-Syria-from-Turkey.html
    ''US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria' Pentagon-trained rebels are reported to have betrayed US and handed weapons over to Jabhat al-Nusra immediately after entering Syria'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
    So what was that HALF BILLION DOLLARS really spent on??
    I am still calling Shenanigans!

    ClaudiaLucarelli

    There is MORE of a connection between Hillary and RUSSIA:

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Sam3456 -> DCBill0

    Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers.

    Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.

    Oldiebutgoodie

    With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
    While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
    - Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.

    Scary stuff going on there.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/turkey-to-shut-military-academies-as-it-targets-armed-forces-for-cleansing

    -War in Iraq is escalating- gas depots being destroyed.
    These things have ripple effects for the rest of us.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/militants-storm-iraqi-oil-facility-bai-hassan

    Henrychan -> Wanda Bowen

    Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.

    spraydrift

    'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'

    The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?

    Greg Popa -> spraydrift

    Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]

    The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed 12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]

    mandzorp

    This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.

    errovi

    "The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy, a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of the US Ukraine Business Council."

    So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are?

    Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi

    Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and funding.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289047-exploring-russian-ties-to-the-men-lurking-behind

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3583619/Melania-Trump-s-secret-brother-lives-rural-Slovenia-says-wants-meet-sister-Donald-presidential-election.html

    Brian Burman

    Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.

    What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.

    John Smith -> MentalToo

    drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
    $5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
    Did they build schools No
    Did they build hospitals No!
    They just destabilised the country...
    So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5 Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!

    jezzam -> John Smith

    The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption, none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated in Russia since Putin came to power.

    Brian Burman -> jezzam

    Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".

    Виктор Захаров

    I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....

    Henrychan

    Hello all Hillary supporters,

    You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.

    I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being?

    You must be either:
    Ignorant
    Misinformed
    Lack common sense or
    Mentally ill

    Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?

    Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.

    Oilyheart

    Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley? Bill visits a lot of places.

    Виктор Захаров

    First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....

    Oilyheart

    Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos because it's cool?

    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters, that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.


    Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!

    HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.


    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"


    dikcheney

    I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
    I cant hack her lies
    I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
    I cant hack her unbelievability
    I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
    I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
    I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
    I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
    I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
    I cant hack her transparent deceptions
    I cant hack her associates
    I cant hack her war criminal mentors
    I cant hack her media admirers and shills
    I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
    I cant hack her mate Obama

    Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?

    Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney

    You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or in African dictatorships.

    nnedjo

    Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-)))

    Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo

    Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.


    Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher

    I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.

    nnedjo

    The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise, they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.

    gondwanaboy -> nnedjo

    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.

    They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption scandal that actually has proof

    miri84

    Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping: doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump

    The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations fairly and with integrity.

    guest88888

    Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.

    McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'

    All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue, that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.

    selvak

    I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.

    sejong -> selvak

    Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.

    PCollens

    100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
    Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
    So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries - all panicking more and more now, out of control.
    Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.

    Alec Dacyczyn

    It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily (2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather than be left defenseless.

    I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb someone than negotiate a deal).

    Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn

    I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
    Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from Ivan the Terrible...
    NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down a Russian fighter.
    That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
    Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
    If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?

    Sam3456

    A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein.

    niftydude

    Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.

    livingstonfc

    Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.

    BSchwartz

    Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.

    A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy regarding Obama.

    But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer to the Russians than to much of America.

    Sam3456 -> BSchwartz

    Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.

    Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz

    Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?

    PCollens -> BSchwartz

    A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!

    Gem59

    The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians

    http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2Frussia-and-the-dnc-leaks%2F7663250&h=TAQEnZ2rE

    Matronum

    A wee bit...creepy!

    Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those Cold War years. Still...creepy!

    Pork Mistret -> Matronum

    See a doctor . A case of severe russophobia

    Heathenlullaby

    US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

    http://www.storyleak.com/us-military-caught-social-media-running-mass-propaganda-accounts/

    HauptmannGurski -> Heathenlullaby

    Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.

    Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?

    Ping2fyoutoo

    "experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."

    That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"

    It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.

    The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.

    The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.

    And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.

    Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo

    On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country.

    PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo

    Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
    Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.

    normankirk

    So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests are worldwide.
    And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack of the DNC.

    Suga

    Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
    Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
    Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!

    (Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they are surrounded by Pure Evil!

    9/11 and the Cheney Conspiracy with Michael Ruppert
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5qiuLb8jY


    PCollens Suga

    Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.

    Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues, yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including the Graun, sadly:


    AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

    9/11 Pentagon Attack - Behind the Smoke Curtain - Barbara Honegger
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

    Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences – an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs

    The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
    CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

    If you only have 5 minutes, this is a great distillation:
    https://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

    poststructuralist

    Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty.

    Eddie2000

    Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this nonsense?


    woof92105

    ****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc. These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

    sejong -> woof92105

    Accuracy score 1/10.

    normankirk -> woof92105

    and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry in the US and UK?

    Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105

    Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....

    shaftedpig

    Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump, so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.

    This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters like HRC.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5798e0d2e4b01180b5312ad2

    ClearItUp

    Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-reutersipsos-idUSKCN10910T

    Tim Cahill

    So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!

    Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians. And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist, we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.

    Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!

    BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?

    ahmedfez

    A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.

    shaftedpig -> ahmedfez

    True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Strengthening Russo-Turkish Alliance Stokes US-Russian Cold War naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
    "... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
    "... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
    "... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
    "... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
    "... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
    "... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
    "... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
    "... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
    "... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
    "... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
    "... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
    "... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
    "... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
    "... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
    "... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
    "... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nmb , August 1, 2016 at 6:21 am

    It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state. This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 1, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Um, given reports that the Turks briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend, Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested. Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.

    Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia

    Steve H. , August 1, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Islamic State calls on members to carry out jihad in Russia

    Could be oblique pressure from Turkey, which has been supplying IS.

    Ask Bandar how that works out.

    John Candlish , August 1, 2016 at 6:38 am

    The Guardian is cranking its front page handorgan while its monkey dances to the tune of Syrian rebels launch operation to break Aleppo siege

    The Al-nursra rebranding hits the spotlight.

    Carla , August 1, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.

    rhcaldwell , August 1, 2016 at 8:03 am

    'Sure hope we've flown all our nukes out of Incirlik…

    Praedor , August 1, 2016 at 9:14 am

    The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.

    They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.

    Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!!!!"

    I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West. First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.

    US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.

    The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:11 am

    If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:

     There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic world.

    Then again, the international co-operation around protecting the ozone layer could have been deepened if the Red Greens hadn't already been promised as sacrificial lambs to the Gladio remnants, their old money benefactors, Western intelligence agencies, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and disgruntled Russian elites who already hated hippies.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

    I messed up the format and don't seem to be able to edit. My apologies.

    Ralph Reed (@RalphWalterReed) , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.

    The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military economy in 15 years.

    digi_owl , August 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US, and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.

    And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback that is still ongoing once Putin took over.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Great interview. It's good to see Helmer on TRNN.

    Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she predicted this coup 18 months ago.

    There are a number of insightful interviews she has given about Turkey over the last 18 months. Here are a couple:

    Lengthy video interview with Edmonds about
    Turkey / Gulen background from 2014, "Sibel Edmonds Explains the CIA's "Reverse Engineering" of Erdogan". She says it is easy to document Gulen's close links to the CIA, and makes a strong case for his status as being strongly protected by the USA. It references articles she's written including " Turkish PM Erdogan: The Speedy Transformation of an Imperial Puppet ".

    Two recent interviews since the coup.
    Sibel Edmonds Dissects the Turkish Coup

    Breaking News: Turkey's Coup Plotters are Members of NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (July 24 2016)

    The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the coup, which Helmers also mentions, are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to NATO.

    For background on Edmonds see " Kill the Messenger ", a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Something I found intriguing:

    While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.

    But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says.

    Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is out of view. (USA? Off-world?)

    Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress.

    A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears I'm posting this short comment.

    For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?

    Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?

    dbk , August 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.

    For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military and political affairs.

    I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans) except that he's Greek.

    In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the "coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or hierarchy:

    The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.

    Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").

    Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.

    The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Henry A. Giroux White Supremacy and Sanctioned Violence in the Age of Donald Trump by Henry A. Giroux

    A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers). So Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of [neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
    Notable quotes:
    "... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
    "... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    July 27, 2016 | truth-out.org

    Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece, France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic modes of rule and policies. As Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.

    One consequence is that the public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.

    Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing. They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."

    State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with) the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.

    Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.

    Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.

    ... ... ...

    In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures, walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clearly, from Hickenloopers speech before Clinton, the military brass cant wait for her becoaming POTUS!

    Notable quotes:
    "... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
    "... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
    "... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
    "... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal , July 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!

    0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).

    0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.

    I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama.

    Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination & authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.

    One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses to valid Progressives' policy critiques of

    1. You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
    2. Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy

    These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not be available for HClinton to use.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!

    Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Trump Ad Hillary Clinton Crooked Warmonger

    Stakes are too high to elect warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Vote for Trump in November. See also another look at Hillary's war record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNu-0Vrvrf0&feature=youtu.be
    Notable quotes:
    "... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
    "... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
    "... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
    "... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
    YouTube
    aspiesresearchmom1 week ago
    This video should be viral. #KweenKrookedKillary and her moronic minions don't have a chance when Bernie's voters get on board the #TrumpTrain2016
    Oxymoron2
    How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable.
    gspotjazz
    Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them.
    Jim Mooney
    Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
    Bad Dog
    Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
    Alex O.
    I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
    Tina Siz
    WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.

    Truth Archives

    Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?

    2eyesofhorus

    Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually

    Aisha K

    Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the entire world, including USA.

    1800 Pupusas

    I'm Hispanic but I prefer Trump

    De Selby

    she will literally say anything to benefit herself. the country will be ruined if she is elected president.

    NSA Spying

    Hilary Clinton is our generation's Henry Kissinger.

    oanimalinho2

    +NSA Spying No, she isn't. She is much worse than that.

    Christopher Horton
    This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible - and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday, Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits him.

    Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute. Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...

    Garou

    Take it from me .. She's a monster.

    gamira007

    +PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine. The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if voting did really matter then it would be illegal.

    PeaceAndJustice

    +Philo Beddoe

    Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
    "... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
    "... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
    "... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
    "... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
    "... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
    Jun 08, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    ... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

    This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

    Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians."

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

    Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her "no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

    Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared , "we came, we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent "regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed "moderate" but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a "safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another "regime change."

    In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton's disappointment.

    Parting Ways

    Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

    Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."

    There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

    Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.

    At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation's militaristic impulses.

    In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

    By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?']

    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 in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

    How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
    Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not trust them).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
    "... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
    "... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
    "... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
    "... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
    "... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
    "... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
    "... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
    "... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.

    The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year, Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.

    And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.

    Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.

    At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.

    "The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia, in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing into the hands of Russian strategy."

    Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.

    "This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the United States."

    In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky IV."

    This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.

    Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?

    The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT

    So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT

    People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy has been lost to corruption!!!!

    George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT

    I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.

    Aleksandar Malečić, 7/28/2016 5:16 PM EDT

    It's meant to be profitable, not intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww_z6Teynow

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:21 PM EDT

    It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just can't help themselves.

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.

    Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.

    Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.

    You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.

    But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad one major party is going to recognize that now.

    invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?

    I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention). He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT

    Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security. She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing so why file a criminal charge.

    Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.

    OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT

    The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know--- the Clinton/Obama "reset".

    stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT

    Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's stupid reset button was all about?

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.

    All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since before the conflict broke out. What was the point?

    Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized, destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected from those educated Hilary Voters...

    Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT

    Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama and the Kitchen Table

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence: ..."
    "... [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. ..."
    "... Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Obama's speech is a return to hope and change, but in a minor key. Here's Obama's appeal to the working class :

    By so many measures [but not the kitchen table charts above] , our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. And through every victory and every setback, I've insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn't meet all of our challenges in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.

    So, tonight, I'm here to tell you that, yes, we [who?] 've still got more work to do. More work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave or a decent retirement; for every child who needs a sturdier ladder out of poverty or a world-class education [credentiaism]; for everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer - (applause) - our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful and sustainable for the next generation. (Applause.) We're not done perfecting our union, or living up to our founding creed that all of us are created equal; all of us are free in the eyes of God. (Applause.)

    (I'm sorry, that's the best I can come up with.) Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence:

    [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years.

    Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households.

    So where Sanders exposes the power imbalance between labor and capital - might even be said to enact it in the intellectual and rhetorical concessions in part two of his speech - Obama carefully erases it. He does so by pushing out the horizon for hopes to be realized ("not yet felt," not "even in one lifetime",) and minimizing our expectations for change. Look at his adjectives: "more work," "sturdier ladder," "safer," "fairer," "more secure," "more peaceful." It's like the soft inverted totalitarianism of low expectations.

    This after a candidate explicitly calling for (dread word) socialism - which, for those who came in late, is all about the power imbalance between labor and capital - took 45% of the Democrat vote in a grotesquely rigged primary --

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama is neoliberal and behaved like a typical neoliberal during 2008 crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her. ..."
    "... Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Karl , July 30, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Bizarre post. Obama bailed out the banks? Most of the bank bailout money from TARP was spent under the Bush administration after TARP was enacted in October 2008, before Obama took office, and the bulk of the remaining money spent under TARP after Obama took office was for the auto industry rescue. I'm no Hillary fan, but get your facts straight even if they don't fit your narrative. I used to love Naked Capitalism, but it has gone off the rails recently with its authors' bizarre assertions - Krugman a necon, Kaine a Blue Dog Democrat, Hillary soliciting donations from the Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the one hand (both big fans of hers, I hear), and George Soros on the other - and conspiracy theories (Diebold in league with the DNC to fix elections - evidence, please). And let me know when the remake of the "Siberian Candidate" (sic) is released to theaters so I can catch it before your seemingly preferred candidate Trump - that pacifist who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing and won't rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS, and that man of the working class who proposes yuuuge! tax cuts for the top 1/10th of 1% - bans such subversive material

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 1:26 am

    You suffer from a reading comprehension problem, so you should read another site.

    Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her.

    Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout.

    As for your other arguments, you seem to have a fondness for fabrication. We've never posted on the Kochs and the Clintons, but a highly respected political reporter, Lee Fang of the Intercept, has on how the Clinton campaign has deep ties to Koch lobbyists , so you seem unable to remember where you read things. We've repeatedly called Krugman a neo liberal because he is one. While technically Kaine cannot be a Blue Dog, because as a Senator while the Blue Dogs are a House coalition. But Hudson finessed that by calling him a Senate Blue Dog. If you Google the term, it is used both specifically to refer to the House coalition, but also generically to describe conservative Southern Democrats.

    And while Clinton boosters like The Nation and FiveThirtyEight in recent days have tried denying that Kaine is a Blue Dog, more detached media outlets like the UK's Sun have used that precise term to describe his politics. Now that the anti-regulation, pro-business Blue Dogs in the House have been largely turfed out, they appear to have been redefined as being further right than they were to Kaine's benefit. They were "pragmatic" and pro-corporate, which hews to Kaine's pro free trade, pro bank deregulation stance. And did you miss that he is also anti abortion?.

    Nor have we said anything re Diebold being in cahoots with the Dems. As for Trump's tax cuts, with Federal spending at 18% of GDP, he can't cut taxes much, as he's finding out. You seem to have missed that he's had to go back to the drawing board on his plan , and is already messaging that the cuts for the rich would be way lower than he originally contemplated. If he wants to lower taxes for the rich, he's going to have to raise taxes elsewhere, and he'll rapidly find out that all those "somewheres" have lots of lobbyists protecting them.

    We don't have a position on Trump but we have pointed out at length the way the media is not merely cheerleading for Hillary but distorting things Trump said and/or taking them badly out of context, the latest being his joke about Russia turning over Hillary's e-mails. If you look at what Trump actually said, he said no one knew who did the hack (and computer forensic experts confirm that is true) and then said if Russia were behind the hack, it would be bad, and next said something like, "Hey, China, Russia, or whoever in your bed, if you have Hillary's missing e-mails, it would be great if you turned them over. I'm sure you would be rewarded handsomely by our media."

    More broadly, what seems to offend you is that we and our readers, to borrow Glen Ford's expression, are willing to consider that Trump may well be the less effective evil. We think both are dreadful candidates, but Trump, who would be even more of an outsider than Jimmy Carter, is more likely to get little done. And let us not forget that Carter had Democrats in charge of the House and Senate, and was not despised by his own party, as Trump is.

    You seem to be attributing many remarks made in comments to the Lambert and me. Readers argue a lot of positions we don't agree with, like pro gunz and the Tory PR that the EU will roll over in Brexit talks to preserve their exports to the UK. I gather you'd rather have us censor comments so they reflect only your views.

    Shorter: better trolls, please.

    [Jul 31, 2016] (((Scott))) on Twitter Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship

    twitter.com

    #NeverHillary #LockHerUp

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
    they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
    rather short and simple one.

    Q; Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's
    "no travel" list in 1981.
    • (((Scott))) @bamasevere 11 h
    Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship?
    #NeverHillary #LockHerllp
    4ч 28 V 35 •••

    [Jul 31, 2016] European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of indigenous populations.

    Notable quotes:
    "... King Leopold's Ghost ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia , July 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    The Ghost of King Leopold II Still Haunts Us

    European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of indigenous populations. European nations broke their promise to protect and promote the welfare of the indigenous African people. Instead the Belgians dehumanized and debased African societies producing the social determinants of death that gave rise to deadly infectious diseases.

    Disclaimer: I grew up in a UK colony.

    In the passage above I intensely dislike the transition from the general 'European colonization" to specific "Belgian." The Congo was a Belgian disaster from start to finish.

    Kokuanani , July 29, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I highly recommend Hochschild's book, King Leopold's Ghost , mentioned in fn 4 of the article. It's a detailed description of the horrific circumstances in the Congo under the Belgians. Most of the papers and other sources were burned or kept hidden until Hochschild's inquiry and book. That's why you didn't learn about it in history class. [Well, that and a few other reasons.]

    It will make you cry.

    Plenue , July 29, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    My favorite* part of Imperial Reckoning is that after it came out there were a bunch of other historians who criticized it and claimed Elkins numbers for the amount of people detained and killed were inflated and completely implausible.

    Well, excuse me, but she makes it very clear that the British records regarding the final period of the colonization of Kenya were conspicuously absent, both in Kenya and in the home archives back in Britain. As in there were giant empty sections on the shelves, completely out of character for the normally anally retentive British record keeping. The only possible explanation being that a vast number of documents were destroyed to hide what they contained. Even so, she managed to find enough surviving documentation to piece together a very dismal picture. And she was the only person who ever bothered to go archive mining in regards to Kenya (in addition to a lot of time spent traveling around Kenya interviewing people who witnessed events first hand).

    For the sake of argument, maybe her numbers are inflated. But there is literally no other historian who has done the kind of work on the subject that Elkins did, so how the hell would they have any idea if her numbers were right or wrong?

    *actually second favorite, since my number one favorite is the blurb from self-hating Scotsman and British Empire apologist Niall Ferguson on the back of the book to the effect that it provides a sobering account of the 'excesses' of Empire, as if Empire could ever be anything but an inherent excess.

    Synoia , July 30, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    My comment was specific to the Belgian excesses in the Congo. Your comment is a misunderstanding of the subject of my comment.

    As to the horrors of British Imperialism, I am aware they exist (for example: Black Hole response), and did not comment. I would also point out the the British Imperialism would have to be viewed under the contemporaneous activities of the world. I recommend reviewing Madam Tinabu's efforts in Nigeria, or Shaka's and Dingan's efforts in South Africa, and most recently, Mugabe's efforts in Matabeleland.

    In modern times: Stalin's efforts in the USSR. Or WW I, or WW II, or the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, its Monroe doctrine in South America, or the Saudis' in Yemen, are much worse than British Imperialism.

    And yes, that is my biased opinion. The British never promise to respect democracy, and then continually undermine the will of the people with military coup after military coup, or sanctions for ever, followed by Dictator after Dictator.

    The US, and many of its people, appear to have a predilection for Sanctimony coupled with Hypocrisy.

    Plenue , July 30, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    You sure love to engage in slavery apologism. You refer to Tinabu constantly. She and Shaka/Dingane had been dead for decades before the British colony in Kenya was even established.

    pretzelattack , July 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    i certainly never learned about king leopold's depradations in class. eye opening book.

    Plenue , July 29, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Maybe not in in history class, but Conrad's Heart of Darkness is a pretty ubiquitous piece of culture. Apocalypse Now is probably more famous and strips the story of its African setting, but the core attributes still remain. Especially the implicit moral that any 'civilization' that engages in mass butchery and exploitation of natives is nowhere near as civilized as it fancies itself. And the natives are never as 'primitive' as the colonial overlords think they are.

    pretzelattack , July 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    yeah i meant history classes in high school. somebody told me about hochschild's book in an online discussion of heart of darkness.

    Jim Haygood , July 29, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Hillary … better than King Leopold! *

    * but she shares His Majesty's aversion to press conferences. :-(

    Mel , July 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The Casement Report (Project Gutenberg), apparently cited by Conan Doyle

    Gaianne , July 30, 2016 at 3:15 am

    It is good that detailed information is coming out about the Belgian Congo.

    But I don't see how the whole subject can be considered a surprise.

    In his story "The Heart of Darkness"–which is usually taken to have something to do with African savagery–Joseph Conrad plainly describes how the Belgians did not feed their slave labor because it was cheaper to get new slaves than to feed the slaves they had. Typically, when the slaves weakened, they were thrown in pits to die and new slaves were acquired.

    –Gaianne

    windsock , July 30, 2016 at 4:09 am

    Hmm… Belgian depredations in the Congo… any coincidence that it is also the seat of the EU Commission?

    makerowner , July 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    The "Congo Free State" wasn't Belgian, it was a private colony of King Leopold II. It was officially established at the Berlin Conference , which involved all the powers of Europe, and part of the deal for the other European countries was that there would be "free trade" without any favour shown to Belgian traders (though this turned out to be a lie). One of the major exploiters of the "products of the forest" was the Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company , which, as the name indicates, had British and Belgian owners. So in many ways the "humanitarian mission" in the Congo was a European, rather than just Belgian, project.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Russian factor in US elections

    Jul 28, 2016 | katehon.com

    The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election. Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in the Crimea.

    Noise and hysteria

    Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes, was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.

    Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.

    The establishment's tantrum

    Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence, made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."

    It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.

    The pro-American candidate

    The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage. Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.

    Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".

    Related links

    [Jul 30, 2016] Is Russia our enemy?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
    "... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
    "... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
    "... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
    "... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
    "... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
    "... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
    "... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
    "... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
    "... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
    "... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
    "... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
    "... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
    "... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
    "... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
    "... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
    "... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
    "... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
    "... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com
    The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?

    The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.

    We should all sober up. pl

    Valissa

    "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us."
    -- Thich Nhat Hanh

    Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.

    Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.

    Grizziz -> Ghostship...

    I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated.

    rkka said in reply to Grizziz...

    Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world.

    Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.

    And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.

    Tel said in reply to Valissa...

    Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."

    Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.

    I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking to it. You have never had it so good.

    Dave Schuler

    Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.

    SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...

    Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness".

    I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.

    NotTimothyGeithner said...

    Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S. financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a diplomatic revolt.

    The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance, defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.

    Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten that perceived slight.

    SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...

    Moscow is large enough to be

    A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however, have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.

    Cee:

    Col. Lang,

    I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

    Thomas -> Cee...

    "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17.

    Erik

    The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad).

    All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.

    Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.

    We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?

    Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty was his real offense.

    What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has. 2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.


    James said...

    If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about Putin ...

    Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.

    I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)

    I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything is possible.

    Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.

    (I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)

    kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...

    The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly dismiss hard won economic security.

    rkka -> Ulenspiegel...

    While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the rate of nearly a million/year.

    Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.

    In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"

    Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.

    Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.


    SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...

    Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas and academics to something more sustainable.

    It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you may fill in the blanks.

    SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...

    In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...

    SmoothieX12,

    This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.

    If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again. And some of them might go back.

    IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy. Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization of farm-country Mexico.


    SmoothieX12 -> different clue...

    Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders

    Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and, I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable for years now.

    kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...

    That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%. Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance of normalcy.


    Daniel Nicolas

    In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.

    Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests).

    Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war, they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future USA being even more hostile.

    LondonBob -> Daniel Nicolas...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

    Not likely, will be.

    JohnsonR

    Interesting Spiegel piece about some of Breedlove's email exchanges regarding the Ukraine from two years ago:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

    The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.

    EricB

    Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1

    ... ... ...

    VietnamVet :

    Colonel,

    The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.

    Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees and austerity.

    Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...

    Bill,
    I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit). They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.

    The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control of Crimea.

    Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently have any actual purpose.

    If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.

    Peter Reichard said...

    Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable multi-polar world.

    SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...

    That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."

    kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...

    In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How did that happen?

    rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...

    "How did that happen?"

    In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Two liberal IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
    "... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
    "... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
    "... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    b , 28 July 2016 at 12:41 PM

    Of interest:

    Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.

    The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting computers on November 9.

    Bruce Schneier

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

    By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines >

    Cory Doctorow

    http://boingboing.net/2016/07/27/russia-and-other-states-could.html

    Russia and other states could hack the US election by attacking voting machines

    This is curious as both are usually much more carefully about attribution of such hacks.

    Could this be a "preemptive" attempt to find Russia guilty should the November 9 result come into question?

    John Robb warned earlier that such a scenario could lead to civil war

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/how-the-us-ends-up-in-a-civil-war.html

    Valissa -> b, 28 July 2016 at 02:02 PM

    I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.

    The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/

    Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance.

    When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.

    Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.

    Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank Luntz of the left.

    different clue -> Valissa, 28 July 2016 at 08:58 PM

    The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.

    rjj -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
    guessing they are setting the scene to invalidate an unfavorable vote count and take it to House of Representatives.

    writers could be persuaded they were Doing Good.

    Cee -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:15 PM
    B,

    Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.

    [Jul 30, 2016] If Russian Intelligence Did Hack the DNC, the NSA Would Know, Snowden Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    theintercept.com

    As my colleague Glenn Greenwald told WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract the trove of embarrassing emails published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.

    "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted. "Certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that."

    Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about weapons of mass destruction - and the long history of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.

    The theory gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said something sort of nice about him (though not, as Trump falsely claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.

    Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008, the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

    Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service security team read.)

    Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this," he said.

    Later on Monday, Trump himself then attributed the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked the hell out of us."

    Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions, there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.

    One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S. government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum in Russia.

    "If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it," Snowden wrote on Twitter on Monday, with a link to a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case, he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the DNC's network, which officials told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)

    What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future attacks.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection, but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.

    Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
    ‏@Snowden
    Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility, such hacks will become common.

    [Jul 28, 2016] the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:34 am
    ... ... ...

    The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500 people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .

    That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians" will remain.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Robert Parry slaps the NYT, Bellingcat and others around over analysis of photos in their struggle to attribute blame for MH17:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/will-nyt-retract-latest-anti-russian-fraud/ri15814

    [Jul 26, 2016] Huge See, I Told You So Hillary Admits We Backed ISIS in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones. ..."
    "... Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally. ..."
    "... I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up. ..."
    Aug 11, 2014 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

    RUSH: Now, I mentioned this, I think, in first hour, previously on the program. Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.

    Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought.

    Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.

    It's in The Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's a long interview. But there is this knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama, a comment that he made while Hillary was his secretary of state. Do you remember he praised her, "best secretary of state ever"? She might be, he said. On the day she resigned or the day they announced of her resignation, there was a joint presser.

    Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about how she may be one of the best secretaries of state ever, and now here comes Hillary back-stabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. Right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg: "The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.

    "She says this about President Obama's: 'Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.'" It's a slam, but I wonder: Are reset buttons organizing principles? Because, let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader... (pfft, slap myself) a Russian leader with a plastic and red toy that said, in crudely spelled words, "reset button." I kid you not!

    ... ... ...

    The conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. Remember, Obama, in the previous summer of 2013, issued this red line and dared Assad not to cross it. (imitating Obama) "You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have me to deal with," and we never did anything. But the word was out that Assad was gassing and harming his own people. And I remember saying on this program -- Koko, go back to that era and just for the website today, go find what I said on those days and relink it, 'cause I made the point, I asked the question, "What if it isn't Assad? What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make it appear as though he's doing this, when in fact he's not?"

    And after I'd mentioned that, I got an e-mail from a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew. And Hillary is now coming along and essentially saying the same thing. She's not suggesting that ISIS was there. She is suggesting that our lack of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS all along. ISIS was doing it and they were making it look like Assad did it. And just like the media was biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type of people in Syria who are trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.

    I had never seen any evidence that Bashar Assad -- his father was different. His father, Hafez al-Assad, was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line. But there's no evidence that Bashar had really done it. I knew that Al-Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control. The Muslim Brotherhood's trying to gain control, that whole area. It was a lot of Christians in Syria that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you, and it was made to look like it was Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.

    The point is I called it. I was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed and that she was right about, but she never said it.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay. Here's me, folks, from this program on September 11th, 2013. By the way, Koko, if you want to find the website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September 2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is. But this was September 11th of last year.

    RUSH ARCHIVE: Here we are 12 years later after 9/11, and think about it. Twelve years later we are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria. Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam. That's who our allies are. Those are the rebels that Bashar Assad is supposedly gassing. So we're aligned with 'em because we're aligned against Assad. They're threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.

    RUSH: This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad. It was made to look like Assad was doing the gassing. He wasn't, as it turns out. This morning on Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade spoke to retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling of ISIS and here's what the general said about Hillary's remarks.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: Well, that's General McInerney. I've got 15 seconds before the break. It turns out that my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right, that Assad was not the bad guy.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: You know, I tell you what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton. It's clear to me that Hillary Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still gonna be her strong pantsuit, as she heads into the campaign. She really does. That's why she's doing all of this. But I want to play this audio sound bite again from General McInerney, because there's a gem in this that is another example of how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years, 2004 to 2009. Actually, 2003 to 2008 would be the specific time period, bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the year.

    One other thing. Koko has found exactly what I was talking about. There was a post at RushLimbaugh.com on September 3rd, "What if Assad Didn't Do It?" And my memory has now been refreshed. I had a couple of sources and an e-mail from a friend confirm, so three different confirmations here from people, that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people probably wasn't true. That it was, it turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was doing it, and making it look like it was Assad, and that's who our allies were. We were anti-Assad and we actually had an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.

    I remember I took my fair share of heat, and I always do when I'm not part of the conventional wisdom. Assad's easy to hate. Assad's a dictator. Assad has a typical bad image and when somebody says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed. And here I came, all of Washington supports the idea that Assad was doing it, and I said, "I'm not so sure. What if."

    "Rush, you didn't have to say anything. Why are you going out on a limb? Why do you want to sound like you're defending Assad?"

    I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: In the early days of 2002 when Bush was traveling the country making the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al-Qaeda, prior to 9/11, had done some training in Iraq. And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out shell of an airliner fuselage.

    Now, the conventional wisdom was that Al-Qaeda had never been in Iraq, that Bush was making this up, or that the intel was all wrong, but likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to make their case, because Al-Qaeda was clearly the enemy after 9/11. Al-Qaeda had hijacked the planes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al-Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

    The Democrats and the media, led by Obama starting in 2002, and other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy, they were all -- I mean, John Kerry, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq and nobody can prove it, they said. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Now, the Bush people at the time were saying, "We can't afford --" 9/11 had just happened. "What happened here is real. And any time there is anybody in the world vowing to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously."

    They were making the case for preemptive military strikes. That's what all this was called, because the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore it was not moral or strategically wise to hit Iraq. They had nothing to do with it. The Bush people were saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter, they're threatening to do the same thing. And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people, and we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.

    Saddam at the time was lying to the UN inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction. It turned out that he was big timing and he was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by being the most feared. So he was lying about at least the size of his weapons of mass destruction stock. And part of the lie, part of the illusion was to not let the inspectors in. He wanted everybody to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff. And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action. We've got to hit preemptively.

    I'll never forget any of this, folks. Because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it. Because the Democrats, even after 9/11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting credit for any policy he instituted following 9/11.

    Also remember this, along those same lines. Bill Clinton, it was reported -- he later denied it -- but Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9/11 didn't happen on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership. He was upset that it had happened with Bush. If it was gonna happen, why couldn't it have happened during his time? We reported that and all hell broke loose. A string of denials were forthcoming.

    But the point is they politicize everything. There was unity for a week and after that the Democrats devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive achievement in the aftermath of 911. So these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when it came to Iraq. At first they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan. That's when they asked for the vote a second time.

    Remember, there was a memo uncovered, a memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat senator from West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy -- and this had come from James Carville and Stan Greenberg in a memo. It was then written up by Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat in the Senate. He said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar.

    And it said if they were to succeed with this, that their strategy depended on convincing people that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers. So, as I say, here's the gem that was in McInerney's piece ('cause I'm running out of time here). Throughout all of this in the run-up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al-Qaeda might have been in Iraq came up, the Democrats said, "No way!

    "Al-Qaeda never found its way to Iraq! They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if you gave 'em a map. They haven't been to Iraq. They don't have anything to do with Saddam! They were helpless." Now listen to what we just heard here. ISIS was originally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now, some of you might be saying, "Well, maybe so, Rush, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked."

    It did!

    We were able to confirm that elements of Al-Qaeda did connect with Saddam for training exercises and so forth. But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here. ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Iraq are all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. And in Syria, we were actually, stupidity and maybe unknowingly (given this bunch, I could believe it was unknowingly) supporting them

    Because we had concluded that Bashar Assad was the one gassing his own people. I had never seen any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way. I knew he treated political enemies that way, which is why it was not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own people if he's gassed others. Ditto, Saddam and the Kurds. But there hadn't been any evidence that Bashar Assad gassed his own people.

    So, anyway, that's that, and it's just... Some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just last year and some of it's just yesterday, and so much of it is lies. And so many of these lies are why we're even here today. So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large reasons why Obama was elected in the first place. It's just dispiriting in a way -- and in another way, surely frustrating, and that's why I've been so ticked off all day.

    END TRANSCRIPT

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
    "... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Macon Richardson | Jul 23, 2016 6:09:36 PM | 36

    jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right now.

    Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.

    The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that has happened since.

    Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy Weaver's wife and baby.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Didnt Create ISIS, But America Can Still Blame Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
    "... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
    "... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
    "... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
    "... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
    "... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
    "... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
    "... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
    blackbag.gawker.com

    Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But, that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.

    According to at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S. and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit, Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton quotes:

    Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation, in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?

    One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another version, as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic and economic interests.

    Despite the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut felt compelled to publicly debunk all this on their Facebook page, it's unclear how many people in the region actually believed it.

    The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs ( #مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون) quickly started trending across social media in the region, Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."

    Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.

    Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however. Writing in his "Open Source" column for the New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.

    For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed wrote on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh century."

    That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.

    Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!

    Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.

    America is better than that.

    Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.

    U.S. Policy in Chechnya

    In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.

    ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.

    "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting.

    When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp run by the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo, ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.

    Upon further digging by Palast:

    Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to roost.

    As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said, "It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."

    The agency has gone to great lengths to paper over this. When former CIA agent Robert Baer-whose writing served as the factual basis for that weird George Clooney movie Syriana-wanted to cite Russian sources about the Saudi-Chechen connection in his book Sleeping With the Devil, the agency pressured him not to. This despite the fact that it was publicly available information he'd acquired after retiring from government service.

    A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.

    "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

    Granted: The events of September 11th made this grand strategy a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years, particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.

    [Jul 20, 2016] This despicable king of bait and switch Obama wants to join venture capital

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying. ..."
    "... I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. ..."
    "... My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month ..."
    "... It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. ..."
    "... when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything. ..."
    "... This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience. ..."
    "... To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents. ..."
    The Guardian

    And so President Barack Obama did an interview with Business Week in which he was congratulated for his stewardship of the economy and asked "what industries" he might choose to join upon his retirement from the White House. The president replied as follows:

    … what I will say is that – just to bring things full circle about innovation – the conversations I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying.

    In relating this anecdote, I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. No.

    My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month

    ... ... ...

    It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. In the countries of Old Europe, maybe, powerful politicians sell out grotesquely to Goldman Sachs; but when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything.

    MrSleary

    I suppose that before voting for any candidate these days we would need him/her to be able to demonstrate complete ignorance in every field.

    This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience.

    The other aspect of this is the effect that developments in technology have had on previously industrialized societies. In most of the countries of Western Europe industrialization created a situation in which organized labour had real power and a distinctive voice. De-industrialization has largely eliminated this from our political landscape with the result that people previously represented by the unions no longer have either power or a voice. The alienating effect of this can be seen in both Europe and the USA.

    To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents.

    The radical, and in many instance, violent responses to various local circumstances in widely different parts of the world - USA, France, Britain, Turkey, Syria, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia - one could go on - may seem to be quite distinct, but they surely have a common root; at a time of rapid and radical change in the very texture of human life, growing inequality within is an explosive factor.

    [Jul 19, 2016] What Republican Foreign Policy Reform Requires by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
    "... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
    "... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
    "... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
    "... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
    "... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
    July 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.

    The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another.

    Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.

    Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.

    Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests," they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.

    Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.

    Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home.

    Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.

    Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.

    [Jul 19, 2016] The Hawks Are Still in Charge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
    "... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
    The American Conservative

    In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an operational plan.

    Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.

    According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.

    If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.

    ... ... ...

    Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.

    [Jul 17, 2016] MH17 crash: Malaysia Airlines 'strikes deal on damages', says lawyer

    www.bbc.com

    Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.

    A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.

    Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to about $145,000 (Ł109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Credentialism and Corruption: The Opioid Epidemic and the Looting Professional Class

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" ..."
    "... The German Ideology ..."
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    "... Yves dropped the phrase "the looting professional class," and I said "I've got to post on that!" ..."
    "... The question we posed then as now: "How do these people live with themselves?" (For a discussion of the medical aspects of opioids in general and the regulatory state of play, see here and here .) ..."
    "... Based purely on timing, it seems likely that developments in the medical and pharmaceutical industries played a significant role in setting off the epidemic of drug poisonings, which increased more than sixfold in the white-middle-aged demographic between 1999 and 2013, and which played an important role in raising its over-all mortality rate. By many accounts, the widespread misuse of prescription drugs, particularly opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin, began in the late nineties and rapidly became a chronic problem. ..."
    "... There is, however, something that does make white men and women in the U.S. unique compared with other demographics around the world: their consumption of prescription opioids. Although the U.S. constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80 percent of the world's opioids. As Skinner and Meara point out in their study, a disproportionate amount of these opioid users are white, and past studies have shown that doctors are much more willing to treat pain in white patients than in blacks. ..."
    "... The body count is comparable to the AIDS epidemic ..."
    "... We calculated that about 500,000 middle-age Americans died who would still be alive. AIDS has killed more than that but the numbers are in the same ballpark. The comparison is useful because people have a hard time thinking about changes in mortality rates-so many per 100,000. And everyone knows about HIV/AIDS: People wear ribbons and it is seen as a national tragedy. But there are no ribbons, no awareness for this, and there should be. ..."
    "... OxyContin was successfully marketed by Purdue Pharma ("successfully" rather in the way that HIV is successful, only with different transmission vectors). ..."
    "... The American Journal of Public Health ..."
    "... Los Angeles Times ..."
    "... I was shocked by the LA Times reporting on Purdue. They clearly knew that they were part of the supply chain with Distributors, Pharmacies, Doctors and old fashioned drug dealers who were facilitating thousands of deaths though Oxycontin addiction and overdoses. They set up safety monitoring committees which did practically nothing by design. Selling death for profit. Shame on them. ..."
    "... Purdue had one final shot at avoiding trial: A motion for summary judgment. … To make this critical argument, the company tapped Eric Holder Jr ., who had been the nation's first African American deputy attorney general. On Oct. 13, 2004, the man who would become President Obama's attorney general argued that West Virginia prosecutors didn't have sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. ..."
    "... I'm sure a Psychologist could say this more factually than I, but if you job depends on it or at least benefits from it, 2 degrees of separation from cause and effect is enough to declare moral innocence in ones mind. ..."
    "... Professionals are intelligent enough to fool themselves into believing this with hi consistency. In that respect they are no different from the looting bankers. ..."
    "... The general idea is that the more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of, while the closer the object is, the more concretely it will be thought of. ..."
    "... Ethical Amnesia . ..."
    "... Although you are making a strong argument against our particular credentialed class, my sense is that this behavior will arise in any social hierarchy with more than four or five levels. ..."
    "... Distance makes it abstract. The dangerous part is when abstraction makes it distant…like when a human is reduced to 'what do you do for a living?' – the polite version of 'How much do you make?' "I am a professor." ..."
    "... Does the professor know how many molecules have to be moved to make a buck? Not too many, with oxycontin. A particularly efficient enterprise whose externality is the exact opposite of a ride on the last ship out. ..."
    "... Remember the famous Millgram experiment? Two degrees of separation- Physical because the subject was behind a mirror in a "laboratory" observation room, and psychological because the "scientist" in a lab coat supported and encouraged extreme levels of torture which the subjects complied with. ..."
    "... Rather similar to the level of detachment exhibited by Obama when he participates in selecting targets for assassination by remote control drone. Or Hellary Clinton chortling as she recalls viewing video of Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet. ..."
    "... Self-delusion is the opium of the people. ..."
    "... I'm not sure it's simply a matter of obliviousness. In the case of the database designer, the institution feeding him/her the data needs him/her to not get too curious, in other words to willfully remain oblivious. This is quite often achieved by means of an implicit threat: in tech, it's usually the threat of being replaced by someone much younger or by a H1B visa holder. In sales, individuals and teams are often pitted against each other in strict competition, a practice that has ruined several companies, most notably Sears. Marketing is an extremely cutthroat field, and firms will do practically anything to one up each other, including the unethical and illegal. The implicit war of all against all creates a Zeitgeist of insecurity that incentivizes looking the other way or adopting a cultivated obliviousness. ..."
    "... Yes those professions didn't strike me as too hot either. I.T. fields are flooded with H1Bs, being a salesrep can at times be an easy job to get but often isn't (and so salesreps often put up with a lot of crazy) etc.. ..."
    "... We all pick our poison and how much we can live with. And yet most people believe in the ideology of making people scramble for money. They think it makes people "work hard" or "compete" or "add value" but just as absolutely it will make people cut corners. Because they have to because they need that money to live. And yet we still think completion is good. ..."
    "... There are still people trying to run up the down escalator. But people who own the escalator keep cranking up the speed. ..."
    "... As a life-long member of this credentialed professional class (specifically, media, even though the credentials are informal at best), I can say from experience at several of the large media corporations that many, if not most, employees in the editorial ranks are well aware of the damage the industry does to this country (it's more abstract, perhaps, than the pharma example, but it's real). Many speak up, but no one can speak up every time they are asked to execute an unethical or mindless order whose sole goal is to increase ratings and, by extension, "shareholder value." ..."
    "... well most heroin in the usa comes from mexico and the Jalisco Boys cartel, helped by nafta. afghani heroin supplies europe and asia. just an fyi. ..."
    "... Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic ..."
    "... The story of oxycodone is one of rampant criminality: the clinical trials, the approval process, and the marketing are all riddled with probable fabrications and manifest misrepresentations. ..."
    "... The behavior described in this article is clearly terrible, but it doesn't seem fair to blame 20% of the population for this type of thing. You often advise us that generations don't have agency, and the same can be said for economic classes. Most of the people in the richest 20% could be classified as "professionals", as in doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, engineers, managers, etc., but I suspect there are some master plumbers and electricians in that category as well. ..."
    "... I think (a) the lessons of the Milgram experiment (trust your boss; go with the program) and (b) the U. Sinclair notion of can't believe X if you're paycheck depends on not-X … these 2 factors have a lot to do with the separation of the 20% from the 80%. They don't explain the origin, but I think they speak to the persistence. ..."
    "... See also pharmaceuticals promotion of effective pain management schemes and punishment of those not adhering to the narrative. ..."
    "... Profiting from supplying opioids is one thing, but what happens when billionaire real estate developers and hedge fund cash start getting into the recovery and mental health business? ..."
    "... In my opinion, Americans are getting slowly poisoned and they are not getting any help either because the US food industry is allowed to sabotage the access to unadulterated foodstuff. This is one of many reasons that people "here" hate the TTIP & Co: We don't want to be American! We don't want US business practices. ..."
    "... Looting is definitely the right term here. I suspect there are many actors who became fabulously wealthy from the prescription opioid (and amphetamine – ADD medications like Adderal are analogues to street Methamphetamine) scam. ..."
    "... The kind of destructive social conduct was noted by cultural anthropologists studying cultures affected by Euopean colonization. As the meaning of the culture was drained by colonial predation, the societies degraded, people lost direction, language changed rapidly and the previous social networks unraveled. Essentially, the colonized no longer saw or felt that there was a place for them. ..."
    "... Everything about constant sitting is bad for the body, and when the sedentary body starts moving, things get worse, because terrible movement patterns are ingrained. There'd have to be nationwide physical therapy to solve it. I recommend reading and following 'deskbound' by Kelly Starrett, if you're a sedentary person. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" –Karl Marx, The German Ideology

    By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Readers liked our initial post on life under neoliberalism and the salaried (or professional (or " 20%") ) classes, and the follow-up, on life under neoliberalism in the newsroom .

    So Yves and I were chatting the other day, the Yves dropped the phrase "the looting professional class," and I said "I've got to post on that!" This is that post, and I'm going to use that concept as a lens to examine the opioid epidemic in the white working class, since the professional classes - and not all individuals so classed! - enabled so much of it. The question we posed then as now: "How do these people live with themselves?" (For a discussion of the medical aspects of opioids in general and the regulatory state of play, see here and here .)

    Deaths from Opiods are like the AIDS Epidemic

    Let's start by looking at the briefly famous Case-Deaton study, and its study of mortality in the white working class, taking education levels as a proxy for class[1]. (For NC's late 2015 discussion of the Case-Deaton study, with an embedded copy of the study itself, see here , and for a follow-up from Barbara Ehrenreich, see here .) From WaPo , on the study and its interpretation:

    The research showed that the mortality rate for whites between the ages of 45 and 54 with a high school education or less rose dramatically between 1999 and 2013, after falling even more sharply for two decades before that.

    That reversal, almost unknown for any large demographic group in an advanced nation, has not been seen in blacks or Hispanics or among Europeans, government data show. The report points to a surge in overdoses from opioid medication and heroin, liver disease and other problems that stem from alcohol abuse, and suicides.

    [Deaton's] analysis: "There's this widening between people at the top and the people who have a ho-hum education and they're not tooled up to compete in a technological economy. … Not only are these people struggling economically, but they're experiencing this health catastrophe too, so they're being hammered twice."

    Another economist who reviewed the study for PNAS used almost the same words.

    "An increasingly pessimistic view of their financial future combined with the increased availability of opioid drugs has created this kind of perfect storm of adverse outcomes," said Jonathan Skinner, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College.

    (The Case-Deaton study had a moment in early 2016, as pundits connected it to Trump voters ( "America's Self-Destructive Whites" ), and then dropped off the radar. And it wasn't all that easy to get Case-Deaton on the radar in the first place; it was instantly rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), before being published in the less prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.)

    Let's look more closely at the potential role of opiods, and in particular OxyContin, in Case-Deaton results. Kevin Drum writes:

    On a related note, the famous Case/Deaton paper showing a rise in white mortality since 2000 breaks out three categories of death: suicides, liver disease (a proxy for alcohol abuse), and drug poisoning. All three have gone up, but poisoning has gone up far, far more than the others. The first two have increased about 50 percent since 2000. Poisoning has increased about 1,500 percent. This coincides with the period when Oxy became popular, and probably accounts for a big part of the difference between increased white mortality in America vs. other countries. Oxy is a famously white drug, and may also account for the fact that mortality has increased among whites but not blacks or Hispanics.

    The New Yorker is more circumspect :

    Based purely on timing, it seems likely that developments in the medical and pharmaceutical industries played a significant role in setting off the epidemic of drug poisonings, which increased more than sixfold in the white-middle-aged demographic between 1999 and 2013, and which played an important role in raising its over-all mortality rate. By many accounts, the widespread misuse of prescription drugs, particularly opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin, began in the late nineties and rapidly became a chronic problem.

    And the Times does some genuine reporting . While not mentioning OxyContin specifically:

    The Times analyzed nearly 60 million death certificates collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1990 to 2014…

    The analysis shows that the rise in white mortality extends well beyond the 45- to 54-year-old age group documented by a pair of Princeton economists in a research paper that startled policy makers and politicians two months ago…

    While the death rate among young whites rose for every age group over the five years before 2014, it rose faster by any measure for the less educated, by 23 percent for those without a high school education, compared with only 4 percent for those with a college degree or more.

    The drug overdose numbers were stark. In 2014, the overdose death rate for whites ages 25 to 34 was five times its level in 1999, and the rate for 35- to 44-year-old whites tripled during that period. The numbers cover both illegal and prescription drugs.

    Rising rates of overdose deaths and suicide appear to have erased the benefits from advances in medical treatment for most age groups of whites. Death rates for drug overdoses and suicides "are running counter to those of chronic diseases," like heart disease, said Ian Rockett, an epidemiologist at West Virginia University.

    In fact, graphs of the drug overdose deaths look like those of deaths from a new infectious disease, said Jonathan Skinner, a Dartmouth economist. "It is like an infection model, diffusing out and catching more and more people," he said.

    And why the white working class? OxyContin and opiod prescription patterns by doctors :

    There is, however, something that does make white men and women in the U.S. unique compared with other demographics around the world: their consumption of prescription opioids. Although the U.S. constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80 percent of the world's opioids. As Skinner and Meara point out in their study, a disproportionate amount of these opioid users are white, and past studies have shown that doctors are much more willing to treat pain in white patients than in blacks.

    Putting a new spin on the word "privilege," eh?

    The body count is comparable to the AIDS epidemic. Slate interviewed Dr. Angus Deaton :

    You told the New York Times that HIV/AIDS is the only good analogue as far as these death rates go. Can you expand on that comparison?

    We calculated that about 500,000 middle-age Americans died who would still be alive. AIDS has killed more than that but the numbers are in the same ballpark. The comparison is useful because people have a hard time thinking about changes in mortality rates-so many per 100,000. And everyone knows about HIV/AIDS: People wear ribbons and it is seen as a national tragedy. But there are no ribbons, no awareness for this, and there should be.

    "No ribbons." Odd, that. Or not[3].

    Summing up: We're looking at a deadly epidemic, in the white working class, previously unnoticed, fueled in part by OxyContin[2], and only briefly "on the radar." So where does the "looting professional class" come in? To understand that, let's turn to how Oxycontin is marketed and delivered through the pharmaceutical supply chain.

    The "Looting Professional Class" as a Transmission Vector

    OxyContin was successfully marketed by Purdue Pharma ("successfully" rather in the way that HIV is successful, only with different transmission vectors). Pacific Standard has a fine summary :

    Starting in 1996, Purdue Pharma expanded its sales department to coincide with the debut of its new drug. According to an article published in The American Journal of Public Health , " The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy ," Purdue increased its number of sales representatives from 318 in 1996 to 671 in 2000. By 2001, when OxyContin was hitting its stride, these sales reps received annual bonuses averaging over $70,000, with some bonuses nearing a quarter of a million dollars. In that year Purdue Pharma spent $200 million marketing its golden goose. Pouring money into marketing is not uncommon for Big Pharma , but proportionate to the size of the company, Purdue's OxyContin push was substantial.

    Boots on the ground was not the only stratagem employed by Purdue to increase sales for OxyContin. Long before the rise of big data, Purdue was compiling profiles of doctors and their prescribing habits into databases. These databases then organized the information based on location to indicate the spectrum of prescribing patterns in a given state or county. The idea was to pinpoint the doctors prescribing the most pain medication and target them for the company's marketing onslaught.

    That the databases couldn't distinguish between doctors who were prescribing more pain meds because they were seeing more patients with chronic pain or were simply looser with their signatures didn't matter to Purdue. The Los Angeles Times reported that by 2002 Purdue Pharma had identified hundreds of doctors who were prescribing OxyContin recklessly, yet they did little about it. The same article notes that it wasn't until June of 2013, at a drug dependency conference in San Diego, that the database was ever even discussed in public.

    Combining the physician database with its expanded marketing, it would become one of Purdue's preeminent missions to make primary care doctors less judicious when it came to handing out OxyContin prescriptions.

    Beginning around 1980, one of the more significant trends in pain pharmacology was the increased use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Like other pharmaceutical companies, Purdue likely sought to capitalize on the abundant financial opportunities of this trend. The logic was simple: While the number of cancer patients was not likely to increase drastically from one year to the next, if a company could expand the indications for use of a particular drug, then it could boost sales exponentially without any real change in the country's health demography.

    This was indeed one of OxyContin's greatest tactical successes. According to "The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin," from 1997 to 2002 prescriptions of OxyContin for non-cancer pain increased almost tenfold.

    (These people are super-smart, and you've got to admire the brilliance. It's shiny!) Pulling out the professionals from that narrative, we have:

    But Purdue Pharma's marketing effort is not the only transmission vector. Let's look at the entire supply chain. From a report (PDF) by Kaiser titled "Follow the Pill" (and which might more useful be titled "From Vat to Vein"):

    The pharmaceutical supply chain is the means through which prescription medicines are delivered to patients. Pharmaceuticals originate in manufacturing sites; are transferred to wholesale distributors; stocked at retail, mail-order, and other types of pharmacies; subject to price negotiations and processed through quality and utilization management screens by pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs); dispensed by pharmacies; and ultimately delivered to and taken by patients. There are many variations on this basic structure, as the players in the supply chain are constantly evolving, and commercial relationships vary considerably by geography, type of medication, and other factors. ….

    The pharmaceutical supply system is complex, and involves multiple organizations that play differing but sometimes overlapping roles in drug distribution and contracting. This complexity results in considerable price variability across different types of consumers, and the supply chain is not well understood by patients or policymakers. Increased understanding of these issues on the part of policymakers should assist in making rational policy decisions for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    It certainly should, given that the entire supply chain is a vector for an AIDS-like epidemic, eh? So, again, we have:

    Except now not merely for Purdue's marketing effort, but for OxyContin manufacturers, wholesale distributors, pharmacy benefit management companies, and pharmacies. That's a biggish tranche of the 10%, no?

    Conclusion

    CEOs, marketing executives, database developers, marketing collateral designers, the sales force, middle managers of all kinds, and doctor: All these professions are highly credentialed. And all have, or should have, different levels of responsibility for the mortality rates from the opoid epidemic; executives have fiduciary responsibility; doctors take the Hippocratic Oath; those highly commissioned sales people knew or should have known what they were selling. Farther down the line, to a database designer, OXYCONTIN_DEATH_RATE might be just another field. Or not! And due to information asymmetries in corporate structures, the different professions once had different levels of knowledge. For some it can be said they did not know. But now they know; the story is out there. As reader Clive wrote:

    Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve dishonesty or exploitation of others in some way.

    And you've got to admit that serving as a transmission vector for an epidemic falls into the category of "exploitation of others."

    But where does the actual looting come in? The easiest answer is through our regimen of intellectual property rights. Pacific Standard once again :

    In its first year, OxyContin accounted for $45 million in sales for its manufacturer, Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. By 2000 that number would balloon to $1.1 billion, an increase of well over 2,000 percent in a span of just four years. Ten years later, the profits would inflate still further, to $3.1 billion. By then the potent opioid accounted for about 30 percent of the painkiller market. What's more, Purdue Pharma's patent for the original OxyContin formula didn't expire until 2013. This meant that a single private, family-owned pharmaceutical company with non-descript headquarters in the Northeast controlled nearly a third of the entire United States market for pain pills.

    Would Purdue's CEOs (and sales force) have been so incentivized to loot profit from the suffering flesh of working class people without that looming patent expiration? Probably not. The epidemic, then, might not have been so virulent. But I think the issue of looting is both deeper and more pervasive. Returning to the story of Tony , the stressed-out pharmacist who wanted to do right by his patients, instead of following the profit-driven scripts of his managers:

    Recall again that corruption, as Zephyr Teachout explains, is not a quid pro quo, but the use of public office for private ends. I think the point of credentials is to create the expectation that the credentialed is in some sense acting in a quasi-official capacity, even if not an agent of the state. Tony, a good pharmacist, was and is trying to maintain a public good, on behalf of the public: Not merely the right pill for the patient, but the public good of trust between professional and citizen, which Boots is trying to destroy, on behalf of the ruling idea of "shareholder value." Ka-ching.

    And :

    If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality of what they deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians: They serve both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they are granted their credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications for his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public and private. He didn't follow his oath.

    Consider trust as a public good. We might, then, look at that public good as "good will" on the balance sheet of the professional class. The looting comes as professionals draw down the good will for (as executives) stock options, for (as managers) bonuses, for (as sales people) commissions, and for the small fry salaries, wages, and the wonderful gift of continued employment status. And all the professionals who willingly served as transmission vectors for the AIDS-like opioid epidemic will be seen to have looted their professional balance sheet as the workings of the system of which they were a part become matters of public knowledge.

    How do they live with themselves?[4]

    NOTES

    [1] The New Yorker does this beautifully exactly because it's so unconscious of its moves: "The big puzzle is why the recent experience of middle-aged white Americans with modest educations has been so different." Always credentials, eh?

    [2] I don't want to get into a chicken-or-egg discussion of whether working class suffering fueled the drugs, or working class drugs the suffering. Linear thinking isn't useful when an epidemic has complex causes, so I say both, mutually reinforcing each other. For a humane look at the epidemic in context, see the writing , the tweeting , and the photography of Chris Arnade, former bond trader.

    [3] The facts that researchers were "startled" by the Case-Deaton results, and that both NEJM and JAMA immediately rejected their paper - on an epidemic of an AIDS-like scale, too - really does cry out for explanation. Since it would be irresponsible not to speculate, I'd urge that consideration be given to the idea that (vulgar) identity politics , which is one of the "ruling ideas" in the professional classes, makes virtue signalling by professionals on working class topics difficult, and virtue signalling on white working class issues nearly impossible. Professors Case and Deaton are exceptions to this rule, of course, but perhaps they were not virtue signalling at all, but acting as disinterested, honorable scholars. There is always that possibility, even today!

    [4] Let me issue my ritual disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. If I had hostages to fortune, and especailly if I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I might put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do." - Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time.

    sd , July 11, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    I posted this in Links this morning. Articles recently in the LA Times.

    How black-market OxyContin spurred a town's descent into crime, addiction and heartbreak
    http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-oxycontin-everett/

    More than 1 million OxyContin pills ended up in the hands of criminals and addicts.
    What the drugmaker knew
    http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-oxycontin-part2/

    How is Purdue Pharma still in business?

    Nealser , July 11, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    I was shocked by the LA Times reporting on Purdue. They clearly knew that they were part of the supply chain with Distributors, Pharmacies, Doctors and old fashioned drug dealers who were facilitating thousands of deaths though Oxycontin addiction and overdoses. They set up safety monitoring committees which did practically nothing by design. Selling death for profit. Shame on them.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 11, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Is this pharmaceutical, and many others, like the gun-makers in this case? Should they not be excluded, but should be held accountable, as Hillary claims regarding gunmakers?

    SteveB , July 11, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    I think that would depend on how much they donated to the Clinton foundation…..

    Left in Wisconsin , July 12, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Having read to the end of comments below and not seeing this info, I think it is worthwhile noting a couple of the identities of specific class agents who have had a hand in this. From Part 1 of the LA Times series:

    1.To obtain FDA approval, Purdue had to demonstrate that OxyContin was safe and as effective as other pain drugs on the market. Under agency guidelines for establishing duration, the company had to show that OxyContin lasted 12 hours for at least half of patients. Purdue submitted the Puerto Rico study, which showed that.

    The FDA approved the application in 1995.

    Dr. Curtis Wright, who led the agency's medical review of the drug , declined to comment for this article. Shortly after OxyContin's approval, he left the FDA and, within two years, was working for Purdue in new product development , according to his sworn testimony in a lawsuit a decade ago.

    2. In the fall of 2004, in a remote courthouse in Appalachia, the 12-hour dosing issue came close to a public airing. The West Virginia attorney general was pressing a lawsuit against Purdue demanding reimbursement of "excessive prescription costs" paid by the state through programs for the poor and elderly. The state accused the company of deceptive marketing, including the 12­-hour claim.

    Purdue's legal team made numerous attempts to get the suit dismissed or moved from state to federal court, where the company had succeeded in getting many cases tossed out. All these efforts failed.

    Purdue had one final shot at avoiding trial: A motion for summary judgment. … To make this critical argument, the company tapped Eric Holder Jr ., who had been the nation's first African American deputy attorney general. On Oct. 13, 2004, the man who would become President Obama's attorney general argued that West Virginia prosecutors didn't have sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.

    I'm not saying the computer programmer doesn't have a moral obligation to do the right thing. But some class agents are clearly more powerful than others.

    Tim , July 11, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    I'm sure a Psychologist could say this more factually than I, but if you job depends on it or at least benefits from it, 2 degrees of separation from cause and effect is enough to declare moral innocence in ones mind.

    Professionals are intelligent enough to fool themselves into believing this with hi consistency. In that respect they are no different from the looting bankers.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    > 2 degrees of separation from cause and effect

    Excellent formulation, but can anybody back it up with analysis? (The nice thing about formulating this as a supply chain is that the degrees of separation become quite evident.)

    grizziz , July 11, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    You might consider Construal Level Theory which considers psychological distance. The general idea is that the more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of, while the closer the object is, the more concretely it will be thought of.
    And of course as part of our increasingly mapped human nature there is Ethical Amnesia .

    Although you are making a strong argument against our particular credentialed class, my sense is that this behavior will arise in any social hierarchy with more than four or five levels.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    Thanks very much.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 11, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Distance makes it abstract. The dangerous part is when abstraction makes it distant…like when a human is reduced to 'what do you do for a living?' – the polite version of 'How much do you make?' "I am a professor."

    "Hey, I think that enhances your chance, as the spouse or partner, of getting on that last ship out of a dying Earth."

    (Instead of abstraction, an example is offered here).

    cnchal , July 11, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    "I am a professor."

    Does the professor know how many molecules have to be moved to make a buck? Not too many, with oxycontin. A particularly efficient enterprise whose externality is the exact opposite of a ride on the last ship out.

    Crazy Horse , July 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Remember the famous Millgram experiment? Two degrees of separation- Physical because the subject was behind a mirror in a "laboratory" observation room, and psychological because the "scientist" in a lab coat supported and encouraged extreme levels of torture which the subjects complied with.

    Rather similar to the level of detachment exhibited by Obama when he participates in selecting targets for assassination by remote control drone. Or Hellary Clinton chortling as she recalls viewing video of Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet.

    Self-delusion is the opium of the people.

    Uahsenaa , July 11, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    I'm not sure it's simply a matter of obliviousness. In the case of the database designer, the institution feeding him/her the data needs him/her to not get too curious, in other words to willfully remain oblivious. This is quite often achieved by means of an implicit threat: in tech, it's usually the threat of being replaced by someone much younger or by a H1B visa holder. In sales, individuals and teams are often pitted against each other in strict competition, a practice that has ruined several companies, most notably Sears. Marketing is an extremely cutthroat field, and firms will do practically anything to one up each other, including the unethical and illegal. The implicit war of all against all creates a Zeitgeist of insecurity that incentivizes looking the other way or adopting a cultivated obliviousness.

    Even in the hallowed halls of academe, you see this play out. When the graduate student union was negotiating its most recent contract with the U of Iowa, the dean of the graduate college said straight out that the contract they wanted would "price them out of the market." Lo and behold, since then, the University has met all of the increased demand on teaching (higher enrollment=more classes) by hiring ad hoc contingent faculty. The number of permanent positions created to meet this demand is functionally zero.

    Alex morfesis , July 11, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Purdue pharma saleswoman Kimberly workman…involved in first case of pill mill dox charged with murder, dr denis deonanine (acquitted)…in sun sentinal article, june 11,2002, she is quoted as having testified when confronted by pharmacist kenneth zie***** that deonanine was overboard and going to be a problem…

    her response was…

    "well that's really a shame"…

    but during trial pharmacist kenneth also testified kimberly called complaining when he stopped selling the 160 dosage…

    It appears that "in theory" she was not working for purdue as the trial progressed…

    But…she $hows up on a web search as having submitted and funded a research study for purdue in 2013.

    as its original patent expired purdue arranged with the fda to "ban" any generics as being:

    "too dangerous"…

    but the new and improved(vit dem helpz oft demz german koompanee tex-know-low-geez) oxykraken which now prevents the capacity to melt it on a spoon and shoot it up, is available with the new expandapatent program from the fda (federal dollar addition) program…

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Yes those professions didn't strike me as too hot either. I.T. fields are flooded with H1Bs, being a salesrep can at times be an easy job to get but often isn't (and so salesreps often put up with a lot of crazy) etc..

    We all pick our poison and how much we can live with. And yet most people believe in the ideology of making people scramble for money. They think it makes people "work hard" or "compete" or "add value" but just as absolutely it will make people cut corners. Because they have to because they need that money to live. And yet we still think completion is good.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    There are still people trying to run up the down escalator. But people who own the escalator keep cranking up the speed.

    ekstase , July 11, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    That metaphor used to be connected to teaching. Now it seems to apply to everyone still trying to behave decently, bless their little hearts.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_the_Down_Staircase

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 11, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Competition will get tough, when in the future, everyone needs to get a college degree, and lacking money for tuition is no longer a setback, except the 'IQ not sufficiently high' barrier (for those not taking the less traveled path).

    Then, you will need a master's or a Ph.D. to beat back your fellow serf-competitors for that money to live.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 11, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Professionals, credentialism – what kind of free college education have they gotten, that will be free in the future?

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Maybe they are no different from the minimum wage worker who takes a job at McDonalds. We know McDonalds food isn't healthy, it likely increases heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes etc. So is the minimum wage worker who is helping this by taking a job at Mikey D's also intelligent enough to fool themselves into believing this with consistency and no different than the looting bankers?

    Oh the minimum wage worker might be more desperate for work, but frankly while they may pay more, half the professions listed above don't have a good job market either if we are actually going to be honest about things.

    NoOne InParticular , July 11, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    As a life-long member of this credentialed professional class (specifically, media, even though the credentials are informal at best), I can say from experience at several of the large media corporations that many, if not most, employees in the editorial ranks are well aware of the damage the industry does to this country (it's more abstract, perhaps, than the pharma example, but it's real). Many speak up, but no one can speak up every time they are asked to execute an unethical or mindless order whose sole goal is to increase ratings and, by extension, "shareholder value."

    The chronic complainer will be considered a narcissistic idealist and eventually be fired (typically in a downsizing purge) or, at best, be marginalized. The only hope for those honest people in the ranks is to find an ally slightly higher in the food chain who is willing to fight some of these battles. And that person, in turn, is also in the same boat anyway. The people with families are in the tightest bind and I've never envied them (I have no family to take care of). For years now I went home at night ashamed of what I do. The only satisfying days were those in which I did speak up and someone above welcomed my opinion or even agreed. The worst days were when someone above just laughed dismissively at my concerns.

    Ike , July 11, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Not to mention the Military-Industrial Complex where I think this type of analysis is directly applicable, only the degree of separation is 3 or 4. I see this type of behavior in the building industry. But with this Industry, Errors & Omissions Insurance tends to keep malfeasance and ignorance at bay. Since my work has to be documented and the results are relatively immediate and prominent in the Environment, the degree of separation is kept to one or zero. And maybe that is the solution? Keeping the degree of separation at a negligible number?

    Northeaster , July 11, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    The campaign contributions to both my state and CONgress Members by the opiate industry is extensive. Which of course makes sense, as Massachusetts has a large footprint in this industry, as well as opiate overdoses/deaths.

    A recent article featuring a local police chief here shows that Narcan must now be used 2-3 times to revive folks. However, quantifying what an "epidemic" is has been difficult. If a friend or family member has died from opiate over dosage, then it would probably appear to be an epidemic.

    Then again, now that drug cartels from all corners of the globe can now manufacture opiates, supply & demand rules, along with unfettered access to a market where appetites to get high need to be satiated.

    Judith , July 11, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Another part of the story: production quotes are established by the DEA:

    http://deachronicles.quarles.com/2013/04/dea_uneasy_with-oxycodone/

    Anon , July 11, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The lack of ethical behavior from the credentialed class has many origins. The best attitude when dealing with the credentialed class is caveat emptor . Especially in a society where accumulation of money (and celebrity) is the pinnacle of "success".

    I'm part of the credentialed class, but after sour experience with other doctors, lawyers, architects, priests, and politicians the only prudent path is to watch what they do, not what they say.

    Brian , July 11, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    See:

    cocomaan , July 11, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Call me a freaky conspiracy theorist, but the availability first of oxy and then later of heroin in North America coincides with the US occupation of Afghanistan. That's not an accident. Thebaine isn't something we can synthesize yet, so it has to come from somewhere.

    bob k , July 11, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    well most heroin in the usa comes from mexico and the Jalisco Boys cartel, helped by nafta. afghani heroin supplies europe and asia. just an fyi.

    cocomaan , July 11, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    The cartels get it from Afghanistan, though, because Afghanistan supplies the lion's share of opium.

    nowhere , July 11, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    It's weird that it doesn't seem to be accounted though:

    pg 160 Table VII
    pg 164 Table VIII

    Where does all of that poppy production go?

    JS , July 11, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    Actually, no, the black tar that most poor people in the heartland turn to after they can no longer afford Oxy is grown in Mexico, not Afghanistan.

    In an added irony, Mexican farmers turned to it after NAFTA destroyed their ability to make a living growing their traditional crops.

    Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic by Sam Quinones does a good job of describing how Oxy and then Mexican black tar took over the U.S: https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic/dp/1620402521/

    bob k , July 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    thank you for clarifying. now the mexican cartels are producing fentanyl which is even stronger than heroin and adding it to heroin. police are reporting more overdoses because of this deadly combo.

    I remember a movie the panic in needle park where the junkies were always worried about then the shipment would arrive. you might remember the french connection. that was the 70s when poppies were grown in places like turkey.

    Now there are never panics. there's always mexican black tar.

    fajensen , July 12, 2016 at 3:34 am

    Sure "we" can, see here:

    "A microbial biomanufacturing platform for natural and semisynthetic opioids"
    http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v10/n10/full/nchembio.1613.html

    I checked it out a bit too, out of professional interest. To get started, one would need two courses: "Introductory laboratory techniques" and "Experimental synthetic biology" both available at the "Danish Technical University" (DTU) for a modest fee (About 800 USD). If there is enough people signing up, they will run these courses over the summer holidays (usually, there is, the summer courses are supplementary lessons for students who flunked their semester exams).

    Part of the reason for the collapse and trouble we are in, is that scarcity is more or less over, so, it has to be manufactured to protect all the investments in obsolete thinking and no-longer-needed imperial acquisitions.

    bob k , July 11, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    as to "how do they live with themselves'" let's turn to the immortal John Lennon:

    Living is easy with eyes closed
    Misunderstanding all you see
    It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
    It doesn't matter much to me

    Dwight , July 11, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    This analysis applies to the epidemic of doctor-prescribed amphetamines by adolescents and increasingly younger children. Dr. Peter Breggin is a source for informed outrage on this issue.

    xformbykr , July 11, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    "before being published in the less prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.)"
    this raised an eyebrow, since the PNAS was about the most prestigious place to publish among biochemists (when I was in that world, back in the 70s);

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    I couldn't think of a way to say "medically prestigious" by deadline! I check PNAS regularly…

    Uahsenaa , July 11, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Prestige seems not to be the appropriate angle here, since the journals in question are all in the same echelon. What's more interesting is a point Deaton himself makes about the second rejection, namely that simply identifying an alarming phenomenon was insufficient in itself, that they had to additionally provide some kind of causal justification for this phenomenon. This is beyond strange and seems to indicate what you imply elsewhere in that paragraph, that there seems to be a willful desire not to know this analogous to the way "education reformers" constantly overlook the fact that poverty is the only reliable indicator of failing or sub par schools.

    I presume education and neoliberalism is on the docket at some point? It's probably to most well-documented example of crapification.

    xformbykr , July 11, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    PS above comment was only a 'nit', issued before finishing reading the story; the 'nit' does not subtract from the impact of the story!

    Shilo , July 11, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    The Times analyzed nearly 60 MILLION? death certificates? Sounds like there are jobs for data serfs at the New York Times!

    p.s. Lambert: My relative in the coding field reports that hospitals are beginning to outsource that job overseas.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    So that will make it easier to abolish the whole business and go to single payer!

    dk , July 11, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    I appreciate this article in several ways, but you lose me with "Consider trust as a public good".

    This goes in contrast to the quote from Clive:

    Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve dishonesty or exploitation of others in some way.

    We're over-populated and competing with each other, how could it be otherwise? Trust, without some amount of research, coupled with a period of observation, is a completely naive idea. It always entails risk. The conflation of "trust" with some kind of faith that has an actual consequent effect is mystical thinking.

    Trust can be observed in small isolated communities where everyone knows each other; in that kind of context, dishonesty and exploitation are quickly recognized. That's the context from which it entered our cultures and "moralities". But increase population drastically, and also increase the range of movement between regions, and and the research and observation become complex, more difficult to perform and even more difficult to persist. Socio-economic complexities make it easier and easier to avoid the encumberments of past error, or dishonesty. (I hope I don't have to explain how the internet fails to solve this problem, and also can't).

    And even further, a form of trust is actually operating within exploitative groups like the aggregates of CEOs/Marketing executives/Database developers/Marketing collateral designers/The sales force/Middle managers of all kinds. The trusted principle is, play along and we'll all make some money, and woe to the one that upsets our apple cart. To the extent that trust exists and operates, it's not necessarily a good thing.

    I would love to live in a world where trust, as a discrete positive value, was more viable, but at the moment, this isn't it. So let's please get past that, and look at how we can conduct ourselves as a community in which the members must continue to prove themselves in every instance. Because that is what is required in any case.

    Okay I lied. I actually like this world. The pretenses of trust are being shown for what they are (which is, false and lazy). I think it's a good time to be alive and seek dignity; the fact that it's becoming more difficult just makes it more important and worthwhile to do so. And global warming, too? Bring it!

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    Hmm. I'm not sure that's true. I was thinking of what Graeber IIRC calls everyday communism; the idea that stranger A asking B for directions to the post office gets directions to the post office. Well, granted, not in some cultures that are really people pleasing, but at least you won't get directions that take you over a hidden pit of knives, or under a tripwire that will explode a bomb. That's a basic level of trust, society-wide, and I think these professionals are violating it.

    Now, if there's some economist-techie-geeky reason why that's not a public good I need to think again, but it certainly seems like a public good to me.

    dk , July 11, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    No argument that the individuals in question (pros or otherwise) are violating trust, at least collectively, and in some cases individually.But this doesn't mean that credentials are a good medium for establishing trust. My argument is that short of verification by reference and observation, there is no sure and durable source for trust (other than faith, which can even be maintained after the trust has been violated). Verification and observation, those are the "public goods"; "trust" is their abstract product.

    My travelling experiences suggest that asking a stranger for post office directions is considerably more risky if one is clearly an outsider to the community (language, dress, complexion, etc). No pits or bombs, but knives and similar weapons were involved more than once. But then, I do not limit myself to the touristy destinations (in tourist context, the visitor is considered to be something of a community member).

    I think the ideal that a stranger will, or even should, get equal treatment with established community members is suspect. It's one of the fallacies in the imperialist capitalist dream of access to everywhere (and look, they have a McDonalds!), king for a day every day, no matter where I go, because my money is good. Bourgeois socialists have funny blind spots in the vicinity of conceits they retain from their native cultural contexts, I think this is one of them.

    Strangers are either guests (which requires some kind of sponsorship, with conventions applying to both courtesy and restraint), or potentially hostile until proven otherwise. This is the rule of the road, and not just for humans. And the reasons for this go back to research (reference, or the absence of it) and observation over time being the basis for valid trust. An ignorant visitor and ignorant local are both at risk until sufficient information has been exchanged and accepted. The risk may have nothing to do with malign intent; disease, ignorance of local safety concerns, protection of natural resources…

    The locals that waylaid me were (trying to) retain some of the wealth passing through their turf for their local economy; the profits of tourist hotels and shops largely bypassed their communities. I had absolutely no problem in principle with them doing it, and on some occasions made friends from these initial encounters (in other cases merely escaping).

    To tail it back to the original topic, then value of credentials (as a trust medium) weakens in relation to the sizes of the population and the region. Hucksters busted in one town move on to the next; the larger their range of options and marks, the easier it is for them. Credentials can be forged, their references can be corrupted, their media can be hacked. As tokens of trust, they're problematic at best. Credentials may not be intrinsically useless, but unless we understand the operation of trust (by any media) in practice, and how it can fail, we shouldn't invoke them as either a solution or a problem.

    I think that the idea that fraud and corruption can be safely curtailed by philosophy or legislation (something of a static trust mechanism) alone is also suspect; we're inquisitive problem solvers and keen observers, any weaknesses of flaws in a system will eventually be discovered, and unless understood and addressed, exploited. All living things do this (although not always as individuals, or even at the phenotype level).

    So what's the solution to corruption and fraud? Pay freakin attention and check the math. On everything. Expect problems, and solve them as you go…. people make honest mistakes, too. But don't get fooled twice.

    elime divad , July 11, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    The story of oxycodone is one of rampant criminality: the clinical trials, the approval process, and the marketing are all riddled with probable fabrications and manifest misrepresentations.
    Thanks for this useful summary!
    Maybe someday our country will have a criminal justice system to punish acts like mass murder.

    PQS , July 11, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Very good analysis and piece, LS.

    "Shareholder value" = 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse, IMO.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Thank you.

    DSP , July 12, 2016 at 9:05 am

    I thought the Fifth Horseman was "sound economic advice."

    readerOfTeaLeaves , July 11, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    If you are a doctor seeing 4 patients per hour, 8+ hours per working day, and also covering weekend rotations, you are time constrained. Given the brief time you are able to spend with patients (plus the fact that the drug rep dropped in earlier), it is simpler for most doctors to write one more prescription; they do it all day.

    Having been looted for tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket medical costs over the past five years, this post hits home. Like other patients fed up with being on meds, I started looking for alternatives. They exist.

    Prediction: one of the next shifts in health care will be called Functional Medicine.
    And it is one response, one 'push back' to the incentivized looting and drug dependency of current medical care.

    Here is a one-minute clip from a BBC series of a doctor taking a Functional Medicine approach:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3JNtgbT234
    Note the absence of exam room settings; the doctor is going out into the community, including people's homes.
    And at no point does he simply hand out prescriptions; he dumps the crap out of their kitchen cupboards, advises them on how to shop for groceries, introduces patients to new foods, works out with at least one of them, and provides feedback about their progress.

    His patients are far, far less likely to be looted than your conventional patient.
    And he is able to develop the insight, time, and trust to be able to help patients make choices that improve their health – in some cases, tremendously.

    My link is to a BBC video, because I'm unaware of a US equivalent for this content.
    I am, however, very aware of doctors in the US who are implementing versions of this, or trying new ways to make more time to meet with patients, and create lifestyle-oriented interventions (as opposed to writing prescriptions).

    This is the future of health care, partly because the greed of looting is killing the Golden Goose of the (insured) American middle class.

    Good and decent people do not spend years of their lives in medical school in order to become part of an entrenched system of looting: the people that I know, who are passionate about health care, do not want to play by The Looting Rules. Those crappified rules lead to poor patient outcomes.

    Smart, competent doctors do not want to squander their talent by enabling looters.
    There are brilliant, insightful people who are thinking hard, and risking plenty, to develop new means of health care delivery. They are gutsy as hell, and determined.

    I think that this post could be multiple by 1,000,000 if you think of all the people who are actively attempting to revitalize health care and make it more patient-focused. This post has a tiger by the tail.
    Kudos to Yves and Lambert for this gem.

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    For providing symptom relief to actual physical pain obviously marijuana is an alternative to opiates, maybe not strong enough for late stage cancer and the like so opiates still have their limited and legitimate uses, but an alternative for many other things being treated with opiates. We're only allowed to legalize it now that the Oxy patent has worn off.

    Minor semi-opiates like Kratum can also sometimes be used an alternative although they have more addictive potential than marijuana.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Thanks for the tip on functional medicine (as opposed to, I assume, dysfunctional medicine).

    Vatch , July 11, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    "the looting professional class" the salaried (or professional (or "20%")) classes

    The behavior described in this article is clearly terrible, but it doesn't seem fair to blame 20% of the population for this type of thing. You often advise us that generations don't have agency, and the same can be said for economic classes. Most of the people in the richest 20% could be classified as "professionals", as in doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, engineers, managers, etc., but I suspect there are some master plumbers and electricians in that category as well.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    We don't have clear language for this (for some reason). I'm trying to tease it out by contextualizing the professions in the supply chain, and by underlining that there are honorable professionals in every field. I'm aware that the language is deeply imperfect - people have trouble speaking in Venn diagrams, it seems to be a feature that English doesn't support - but I'm working to improve it. As the granularity improves, the sense of agency improves. (Of course, I can think of professions that shouldn't exist at all, like "Concentration Camp Guard" or "Trofim Lysenko Chair of Genetics" but those are edge cases.)

    Adding, income is a poor proxy for social relations, sadly. It's what we have!

    CraaaaaaaaaaazyChris , July 12, 2016 at 5:22 am

    This exchange and the one above with 'dk' pulled me in. I fear I don't have clear language either, but I want to add this about 'trust' and the professional class:

    I think (a) the lessons of the Milgram experiment (trust your boss; go with the program) and (b) the U. Sinclair notion of can't believe X if you're paycheck depends on not-X … these 2 factors have a lot to do with the separation of the 20% from the 80%. They don't explain the origin, but I think they speak to the persistence.

    Vatch , July 12, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Milgram and Sinclair - that's a couple of powerful motivations! Good insight!

    Marc , July 11, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    See also pharmaceuticals promotion of effective pain management schemes and punishment of those not adhering to the narrative.

    https://addictionunscripted.com/kingpinsoxycontin-heroin-and-the-sackler-sinaloa-connection/

    Marc , July 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    I would also refer to recent medical study on pain medications' effect on continuation of pain sensation after pain relief occurring in placebo groups.

    Oystercatcher , July 11, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Profiting from supplying opioids is one thing, but what happens when billionaire real estate developers and hedge fund cash start getting into the recovery and mental health business?

    http://www.addictionpro.com/article/exclusive-200-million-investment-will-launch-major-science-based-treatment-chain

    gardenbreads , July 11, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    It is not surprising that JAMA and NEJM immediately rejected the paper. From the health care community point of view Case-Deaton
    (1) just tabulated the same CDC data that thousands of other people also do routinely in the same way as soon as it is published each year – epidemiologists, actuaries, public health planners etc. who also routinely do population adjustments and look at trends for the total population and sub-populations. This isn't publishable. It's the equivalent of publishing baseball standings. These trends were no secret.
    (2) Everyone in actual health care besides the data tabulators already knew this – everyone except the health care pundit class. All the emergency department staff and morgue staff and pathologists and managers and people handling death certificates knew these as routine deaths – especially in small town and rustbelt hospitals. Hospital mortality and underlying etiology – both for patients and DOAs – is a big deal in every hospital and is reviewed by many people.

    Thus their paper produced a "so tell me what I don't know" reaction in people in actual healthcare.

    gardenbreads , July 11, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    I totally agree with describing this as looting. It disgusts nearly everyone who have had to deal with the results.

    CDC has been publishing reports on the incredibly rising incidence in non-Hispanic whites for years.

    NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 22 ■ September 2009
    Increase in Fatal Poisonings Involving Opioid Analgesics in the United States, 1999–2006
    Margaret Warner, Lli Hui Chen and Diane m. Makuc

    Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain Relievers - United States, 1999–2008
    Weekly. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, November 4, 2011 / 60(43);1487-1492

    Russ Gibson , July 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The inclusion of database developers as a responsible party is absolutely absurd, and it betrays an ignorance of what database (and software) developers do. We build the informational "machinery" that stores and retrieves data, according to the specs handed to us by business types. We do not typically monitor/summarize/report on the data itself as it rolls in, unless we happen to be specifically tasked with such a thing.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    Thank you for proving my point.

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    It only proves the point if the McDonalds burger flipper is also guilty for also working for a firm of questionable morality. Now of course one could argue that it's a lot different to work at a firm producing Oxy than in fast food (even though the later does kill) and I don't think that's unreasonable.

    I just think that has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a professional or being a working class prole. That factor is irrelevant.

    What about if you work on the database for Coca Cola, are you guilty of increasing diabetes? What about if you work upselling it (ie management says you must ask customers if they would like to supersize their soda or something) at McDonalds?

    Oxy may be worse that such things. We all pick our poison. Some people's picks go far further than our conscience would ever allow us to go. Sometimes professionals have more wiggle room financially but the stats on how few people have a few hundred or thousand bucks in savings makes that questionable.

    I honestly suspect most jobs are a bit corrupt. Even if one works for a non-profit,even many non-profits are stealing massive amounts of the donations for administration. Etc.

    Berial , July 11, 2016 at 6:04 pm

    So you get asked to create a database that tracks sales rep's visits to specific doctors and a doctor's number of prescriptions of all drugs and some specific drugs, (undoubtedly from a long list) and from doing that, the developers are supposed to know that they just helped push opiod addiction?

    I'm REALLY not seeing your point.

    The people that PLANNED this system MIGHT have known the purpose, and the system architect, maybe, but the guys pushing out the code and making sure the database does what is asked probably have NO IDEA about things like that. It's just not something they would even notice.

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    It seems to become a non-obvious question. We need MORE DATA :). No really we just need more information.

    Is the only med Purdue Pharma makes opiates? Then one could say one is working for an opiate provider. Were the employees even full time employees of Purdue Pharma? Sure they might be H1Bs, but also for a time limited database development job they are often 3-6 month contractors, it's VERY common. You could argue the 1099s have some guilt even so though. There is even a possiblity the database development was contracted out to an external firm.

    Is it obvious the harm opiates cause? Well it is NOW. I guess it's why I tend to latch on to the question of if the firm one works for is ethical because I don't believe the wrongdoing is always obvious from say the data. But a firm itself could be said to be unethical and thus it could be argued it is unethical to work for an unethical firm.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 11, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    Now we know, as I said.

    dk , July 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    But if you don't understand what the functions the specs are describing, how can you build a good database? And summarizing and reporting are often in the purview of the developer.

    There is a point to be made here. Managed structures can insulate task fulfillers from the full context(s) of their work. The implementors may not be immediately aware of or fully understand the consequences and implications of their work.

    But there are many scenarios where the database developer has, or should have, full knowledge of the operational aspects of their work relating to compliance, safety, and contractual/fiduciary responsibilities.

    Take for example HIPAA, with several defined rules required for compliant implementation of data management. The database developer should be at least aware of the specifics of the requirements, since they directly address significant aspects of storage and retrieval functions. HIPAA compliance is required by law for handling of any patient, treatment, provider, or payment information (protected health information (PHI)).

    Another example: political fundraising. It is explicitly illegal to sell or use names and addresses of individuals from FEC records as a primary source for solicitations ( http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/saleuse.shtml ). However it is very easy to do so, and the data manager that does it is breaking the law, as much as a person (or document) instructing them (who actually gets prosecuted is another matter entirely).

    jrs , July 11, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Yea HIPPA requires compliance and knowledge on the part of a lot of involved employees, that is part of the law itself. But that workers have knowledge of all aspects of a business is NOT part of the law. So on the other hand management may be scamming the shareholders say and a database developer might not know depending, just because knowledge is shielded in many ways.

    AnEducatedFool , July 12, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    In essence you are arguing that it is acceptable that your profession is fine and that you can all be little Eichmanns now. Your profession has plausible deniablity built into its structure.

    JohnnyGL , July 11, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    I keep seeing this talk of HIV/AIDS as a comparison. Referencing how it spreads through disease-like-vectors

    You guys are missing the ACTUAL spread of HIV/AIDS in some places where the addiction is raging. Sharing needles….

    Very good story, Lambert, keep piecing the puzzle together.

    Katharine , July 11, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Speaking of credentialism, it was "prestigious" JAMA (and I would suggest applying the term to an academic journal automatically casts doubt on its intellectual respectability) that once rushed to publish a badly designed "study" ostensibly by a child who apparently was actually coached by her mother's MD boyfriend, all to discredit an alternative medicine therapy because the AMA hates alternative medicine. The method has continued to be studied, with intriguing articles being published occasionally in less political, more research-oriented journals such as the Journal of Orthopaedic Research and Annals of Internal Medicine.

    For those interested in the subject, Therapeutic Touch International Association, therapeutic-touch.org, provides some literature citations and an 89-page (pdf) copyrighted bibliography.

    Moral: Avoid prestige (and Google ratings) when seeking information.

    vegasmike , July 11, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    I know there's a problem with opioids. But for some of us its very beneficial, provided you have a certain amount of self-discipline. Two years ago I was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis. It was so bad that I could hold a fork, button my shirt , or zipper my fly. If I didn't have surgery. I would have been paralyzed and incontinent. The surgery worked. I lead a normal life. But without Percocet, the pain would be unbearable. I've tried marijuana. It's not that effective. I do Tai-Chi and physical therapy exercises. I even walk and swim. I worry that the pain puritans will take power and insist that I must suffer.

    VietnamVet , July 11, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    The major changes that I have seen since 1961 include widespread pornography, casino gambling, drug addiction, homelessness, forever wars, economic crashes and student debt. In each case someone is making money and the costs to society are discounted. Privatizing gains. Socializing costs. This post on the opioid epidemic is an excellent specific example of this. The gutting of the Western Middle Class and the economy and morality that support it is extremely destabilizing. Either there is a restoration of the rule of law and punishment for crimes against society or "Peace and Prosperity" will be a quaint phrase from half a century ago. That is if mankind survives climate change and/or the Cold War 2.0 with Russia.

    henry_hill , July 11, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    "Although the U.S. constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80 percent of the world's opioids."

    Eighty percent? I'd love to see the data mining in that study. That's a ridiculous number. Opioids are used in almost every culture, just not the drive-thru pharmacy variety.

    fajensen , July 12, 2016 at 4:04 am

    My American colleagues, at the same age as me, are all, with a few exceptions, consuming a ridiculous amount of prescription medicine for all manner of things.

    My prejudiced opinion (because I don't really know) is that many of them started off with some minor but chronic disease, then they got side-effects from the treatment, then they get treated for the side effects, etcetera. The whole thing escalates and they are now bound to eating 15+ different "meds".

    My father was trapped in this bullshit for maybe 20 years, before the government created "palliative teams" – a team of doctors who will go through the medication and illness history of chronic patients. They re-evaluate and re-design their treatment. Usually with life-saving effects, as in: Unexpected years of improved quality of life.

    The cause of the "minor, but chronic disease" is (again in my biased opinion) probably due to unhealthy food; The medicated men can't cook, their wives cannot cook anything "from scratch". They rely on food items in bags, boxes or frozen "because the nutritional values are printed on them, so we know what we are getting(!)".

    The exceptions … they can cook proper food.

    In my opinion, Americans are getting slowly poisoned and they are not getting any help either because the US food industry is allowed to sabotage the access to unadulterated foodstuff. This is one of many reasons that people "here" hate the TTIP & Co: We don't want to be American! We don't want US business practices.

    AnEducatedFool , July 12, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    +1

    JimTan , July 11, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    Looting is definitely the right term here. I suspect there are many actors who became fabulously wealthy from the prescription opioid (and amphetamine – ADD medications like Adderal are analogues to street Methamphetamine) scam.

    Just to put the scale of looting into perspective it should be noted, for readers that live in New York City, that the Sackler family which founded Purdue Pharma funded the Sackler Wing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art which houses the Egyptian Temple of Dendur and study centers for Chinese and Japanese Art History. They are truly magnificent for those who have never visited. Below is a link to additional organizations the Sackler family has endowed:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Sackler#Philanthropy

    From the Wikipedia link they include:

    • The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Fellowship at Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHÉS), France, to fund invited researchers from Israel at IHÉS, 1990
    • The Raymond and Beverly Sackler American Fellowship at IHÉS, France, to fund invited researchers from the USA at IHÉS, 2002
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Institute of Biophysics, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, 2004
    • The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lectureship at IHÉS, France, 2004
    • The Raymond & Beverly Sackler Institute for Biological, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, Yale University, 2008
    • Raymond & Beverly Sackler Laboratories of Biomedical and Biophysical Studies, Rockefeller University, 2008
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical and Physical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, including a program in cardiac stem cell research dedicated to friend and colleague Professor Isadore Rosenfeld, 2008
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Fund for Biomedical and Physical Sciences (in honor of Phillip A. Sharp), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2010
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratory of Biomedical and Physical Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 2010
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratories in the Physics of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2010
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical, Biological, Physical and Engineering Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, 2011
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in honor of Emilio Segre, University of California, Berkeley, 2011
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratories for Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in honor of Saul J. Farber, New York University, School of Medicine, 2011
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Convergence of Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in honor of David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology, 2012
    • Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Convergence of Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in honor of Herbert Pardes, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, 2012
    • The Raymond & Beverly Sackler Convergence Laboratory, Tufts University School of Medicine, 2013

    Not a bad payday for facilitating worldwide opioid addiction.

    JimTan , July 12, 2016 at 12:44 am

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Sackler

    "He endowed galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University, the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Arthur M. Sackler Museum of Art and Archaeology at Peking University in Beijing, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, D.C., and the Jillian & Arthur M. Sackler Wing at the Royal Academy, London. "

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Sackler

    • Sackler Library at the University of Oxford
    • Sackler Laboratories at the University of Reading
    • Sackler Musculoskeletal Research Centre, University College London
    • Sackler Institute of Pulmonary Pharmacology at King's College London[2]
    • Sackler Crossing – a walkway over the lake at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
    • Sackler Biodiversity Imaging Laboratory at the Natural History Museum, London

    Russell , July 12, 2016 at 2:51 am

    If the drug in the story was any good people would not take so many they died.

    Rick Cass , July 12, 2016 at 10:10 am

    The kind of destructive social conduct was noted by cultural anthropologists studying cultures affected by Euopean colonization. As the meaning of the culture was drained by colonial predation, the societies degraded, people lost direction, language changed rapidly and the previous social networks unraveled. Essentially, the colonized no longer saw or felt that there was a place for them.

    In the present case, the working class that formed out of and as a consequence of two world wars no longer has a place in this country. Thus, similar responses to this displacement. In the present case, the colonizers are the credentialed class of mandarins who see themselves as separate from their fellow citizens.

    Pespi , July 12, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    Something I think is lost in the opioid deaths discussion is the fact that these people had real pain. Terrible pain. Treating that pain is good. But a doctor can't change a sedentary culture that creates much of that pain. Everything about constant sitting is bad for the body, and when the sedentary body starts moving, things get worse, because terrible movement patterns are ingrained. There'd have to be nationwide physical therapy to solve it. I recommend reading and following 'deskbound' by Kelly Starrett, if you're a sedentary person.

    JimTan , July 12, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Many Doctors and Pharmacists are well aware they are selling pain medication to drug addicts:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/couple-made-millions-running-nyc-pill-mills-prosecutors-article-1.2415980

    Quote from a 2012 Bloomberg article about South Florida pain 'Pill Mills':

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-06/american-pain-the-largest-u-dot-s-dot-pill-mills-rise-and-fall

    "To move large amounts of prescription painkillers in America, you need somebody to write the prescriptions. You need doctors. Hiring doctors to sell drugs is easy, says George. He found his doctors by posting ads on Craigslist. At their peak, when they were running the largest pill mill operation in the U.S., the George twins had roughly a dozen doctors working for them.

    George says not a single doctor he interviewed ever turned down a job offer. Although he was always younger than the doctors he was interviewing-he was in his late twenties at the time-George says he made a professional impression. "I had such a big office; it was an easy sell," says George. "They didn't walk into some hole-in-the-wall place. The hours were good. The pay was good."

    What the jobs lacked in prestige, they made up for in wages. According to George's indictment, doctors at his clinics were paid a flat fee for each opioid prescription they wrote-typically, $75 to $100 a pop. To help maximize their efficiency, doctors were given prescription stamps they could use quickly, over and over. It was common for physicians at American Pain to see 100 patients a day, he says. At that rate a doctor would earn roughly $37,500 a week-or $1.95 million a year.

    It was a doctor who first advised him to go into the industry. At the time, he and his brother were running a hormone-replacement therapy business and selling steroids online. Along the way they got to know a doctor who told them that painkillers were a much bigger market and advised them on how to get started. The doctor later died in a car crash overseas, but he left the George brothers with a lucrative business model. According to prosecutors, the twins' pain clinics, over their two-year run, sold 20 million oxycodone pills and brought in $40 million."

    barrisj , July 12, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    One minor cavil in your article, Lambert, and that concerns labelling PNAS a "less prestigious journal", as opposed to JAMA or NEJM. Back in the day when I was an active research scientist, publication of original work in PNAS was considered a very worthy accomplishment indeed, as were papers published in Nature, Science, etc. It is a multidiscipline journal, taking in a broad cross-section of the physical and social sciences, as well as medical research, wherein submission of articles for publication must be done by a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a very "prestigious" group, to say the least…peer-review and all that, of course. Now, whatever the reasons for manuscript rejection by the two strictly medical journals, only their respective editors would know; but I suspect it may have to do with…yes, "credentials", as neither of the two authors have any sort of specialised medical background or even one in epidemiology, but are economists, not the usual senior authors JAMA prefers. And, "failure" – a rather loaded word – to gain acceptance in a specialty journal in no way reflects the essential merits of the work, which clearly has been reflected in the immense reception and subsequent citations received in the lay press and media. I look at this as JAMA/NEJM's loss, and PNAS's gain, quite simply.

    [Jul 10, 2016] Anti-militarism by John Quiggin

    This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
    "... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
    "... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
    "... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
    "... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
    "... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
    "... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
    "... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
    "... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
    "... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
    "... ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative. Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in nearly every country in the world.

    Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national interests

    Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on anti-militarism, so I'll essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition

    Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense, military power should not be used to promote national interests

    I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.

    ... ... ...

    My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.

    1. First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming. Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led to disaster.
    2. Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.

    Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds as national self-defense.

    ... ... ...

    [^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people. So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.

    Dylan 07.04.16 at 6:20 am 2

    Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability for force projection?

    If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?

    To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.

    Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?

    Lowhim 07.04.16 at 6:24 am 3

    Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.

    [1] http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/about.html

    Ze K 07.04.16 at 7:21 am 4

    I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce the same result.

    bad Jim 07.04.16 at 7:54 am 5

    We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly described.

    After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves confronting each other in dubious peace.

    Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless: the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.

    So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing machine and everyone tells us how to use it.

    Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty. We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its likely cause.

    david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am

    As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.

    The position advanced in the essay is one for an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.

    But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war. Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.

    Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
    3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
    One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
    … Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic politics would likely horrify us both, but happily


    jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm

    Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
    Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.

    Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm

    Tacitus:

    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation and they call it peace).


    LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm

    from the OP:

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War

    The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more 'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).

    The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war. That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.

    -–

    p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most [militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5). Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).


    Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm

    ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:

    An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from current stabilisation approaches.

    Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.


    Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm

    The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq.

    Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of the Commons" by David Bollier.

    A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.

    The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am

    Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -

    While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm

    Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called 'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of justice you are talking about… no?


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm

    Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
    According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.

    It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili, who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I probably don't need to spell out.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm

    No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is how the 2008 war started.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm

    …a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got screwed. Oh well.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm

    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
    The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s, sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on, these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.


    Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm

    We're a nation of killers.

    Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully, throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their covert operations.

    For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.

    Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm

    In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm

    LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
    I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing, of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections. Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to heard it said that navies were obsolete!


    ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am

    There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military interventions in Iraq.

    "The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.

    Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.

    Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's capabilities.

    "If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said, adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it," she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."

    Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence. "We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."

    Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.

    Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/05/john-chilcot-says-iraq-war-inquiry-will-not-shy-away-from-criticisms


    Layman 07.06.16 at 11:45 am

    Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.


    LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm

    B. Dunbar @123
    Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons for that.

    The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc.

    So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.

    The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come up w other things, no doubt.


    Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm

    @120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm

    My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard, Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end is near.


    Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness the fortunes of the Clintons.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am

    Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -

    If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?

    As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve. Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am

    LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
    'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'

    But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some people. And now we have lots of them.


    Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am

    John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state.

    I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914. The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.

    Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.


    stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm

    "Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."

    In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War; the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World Wars.

    Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.

    The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am

    ' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'

    This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example, 'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e. from the Americans' point of view).

    A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist', depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war, and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.

    But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.

    Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.


    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm

    Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
    One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World, the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 11:55 pm

    Or the global Mafia capo di tutti capi.


    Ze K 07.10.16 at 6:39 am

    WaPo: Trump, Adviser Carter Page are 'Broadly Non-Interventionist'

    …WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":


    In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems seen worldwide today."

    Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan revolution…

    And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm

    Hidari @192

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.

    End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some (not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict (sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd be only one of multiple reasons, if that).


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm

    Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)

    Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy: Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest.

    He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told him to "read between the lines."

    "If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."

    In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are expected to attend.

    Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the 'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.

    If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.

    HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt why Ze K is so high on him.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm

    You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?

    LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?

    B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say.

    You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read, so I don't have to continue.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm

    "You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say. "

    You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now, and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.

    Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am

    @Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -

    Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.



    [Jul 04, 2016] Twenty-first Century "Canadian" Corporate Capitalism is Quite the Racket by Yves Engler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests. ..."
    June 27, 2016 | dissidentvoice.org
    Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests.

    As part of its coverage of the Panama Papers, the Toronto Star recently reported that Gildan Activewear paid only a 2.8% tax rate on more than $1.3 billion US in declared income the last five years and it's unclear if any of the apparel company's measly $38 million in tax was paid in Canada.

    After benefiting …

    (Full article …)

    [Jul 03, 2016] Obama Will Need His Oratory Powers to Sell Globalization by MARK LANDLER

    Notable quotes:
    "... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.

    Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this election year will require all of his oratorical skills.

    Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.

    In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her party turned sharply against free trade.

    "President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."

    The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.

    [Jun 28, 2016] Obama family role in Indonesian genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls]. ..."
    Jun 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    denk | Jun 25, 2016 11:04:51 AM | 98

    facists reunited.

    united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls].

    once again united snake has roped in its fascists buddies in Jakarta for another 'open season' on Chinese people.
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/25/obama-family-role-indonesian-genocide-protected-muslim-radicals.html

    [Jun 28, 2016] Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."
    "... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."
    truepundit.com

    @54 pw

    Here you go ...


    SECRET-NOFORN
    QQQQ

    SERIAL:(U) (b)(3)10 USC§424
    BODY
    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 051443Z OCT 12.

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.

    COUNTRY OR NONSTATE ENTITY: (U) LIBYA (LBY); SYRIA (SYR).

    SUBJECT: ( S//NF ) (b)(3)10 USC§424. FORMER-LIBYA MILITARY WEAPONS
    Shipped to Syria via the Port of Benghazi. Libya

    DATE OF INFORMATION: (U) 1 May 2012 - 1 Sep 2012.

    CUTOFF: (U) 18 Sep 2012.

    (b)(3)10 USC§424, (b)(3)50 USC§3024(i)
    REDACTED
    CLASSIFIED

    WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
    INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED SECRET//NOFORN .

    TEXT: 1. ( S//NF ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
    military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
    the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
    shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm
    and 155mm howitzers missiles.

    2.( S//NF }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
    uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in
    October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
    former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
    shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
    the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
    the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
    ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
    hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)

    3. ( S//NF ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
    2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
    missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
    Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
    approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
    mm].

    (b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
    REDACTED
    CLASSIFIED

    Posted by: jfl | Jun 23, 2016 9:05:30 AM | 67

    [Jun 19, 2016] Syria - Russian Surprise Attack Blows Up Kerrys Delaying Tactic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
    "... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
    "... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
    "... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
    "... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
    "... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
    "... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
    "... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
    "... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
    "... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
    "... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
    "... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
    "... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
    "... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
    "... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
    "... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
    "... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
    "... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
    "... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
    "... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
    "... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
    "... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    The U.S. is unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.

    After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S. supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.

    Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its "moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate" friends.

    The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates" continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.

    After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently expressed the Russian consternation:

    The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months. I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:

    Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.

    The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
    ...
    These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations, around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
    ...
    The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and equip fighters against Islamic State.

    When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.

    U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.

    This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes the intend clear:

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.

    Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."

    The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different story.)

    The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia. It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?

    The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations. You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for the Russian air force. "

    The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria would be split apart.

    The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern city.

    The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.

    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?

    Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:32 AM | 2
    b:
    But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear.
    Please don't be an Obama apologist b. Isn't it clear by now that Obama is not the peace-loving progressive that he pretends to be?
    paul | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:53 AM | 3
    Putin needs to send a message to Israel that Russia will no longer tolerate Israeli bombing raids in Syria.
    Edomac | Jun 18, 2016 12:06:12 PM | 4
    Line in the sand now for Israel it's about time.
    harrylaw | Jun 18, 2016 12:16:30 PM | 5
    Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded on to supertankers bound for the west". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
    This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of the Middle East.
    WorldBLee | Jun 18, 2016 12:23:55 PM | 6
    @Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
    Terry | Jun 18, 2016 12:44:12 PM | 7

    Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington, June 2016. is well worth the listen to .

    Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus ....

    Au | Jun 18, 2016 12:50:42 PM | 8
    @2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning for absolute overt total war against Syria.

    It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the 2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s. in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to be insane w/ hillary.

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 12:54:31 PM | 9
    Just a reminder. Russia, Syria and Iran have a 'mutual defense treaty' that states an attack on one is an attack on all ...

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-russia-iran-syria-mutual-defense-treaties-the-western-media-missed

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 1:10:20 PM | 10
    June 18, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    "On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group that's backed by the U.S.

    Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels who've been trying to overthrow it.

    The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."

    Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.

    quote source - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ignores-warnings-bombs-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group/

    Noirette | Jun 18, 2016 1:13:27 PM | 11
    harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a political transition right now. In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)

    Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good will'..

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15859

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:37:26 PM | 13
    b:
    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
    I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation with Russia is (of course) too risky.

    As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.

    The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the proxy army of Sunni extremists.

    Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) .

    The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks raised suspicions) .

    Note:

    1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked months before or after the time that they actually did attack.

    2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is (as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.

    3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family' they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?

    4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.

    5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and middle-class lifestyle.

    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:43:31 PM | 14
    WorldBLee @6:
    Obama is a weak reed
    Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite".

    virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15
    In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.

    Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.

    This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.

    The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very clear.

    Susan Sunflower | Jun 18, 2016 2:10:09 PM | 16
    Posted by: virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15

    Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting.

    I was noticing how they no longer bother to state objectives to justify our actions (and/or inactions) ... Omar Mateens demand that we "stop bombing Afghanistan" made me wonder if we actually were bombing there, who and what and why ...
    Juan Cole/Center from investigative journalism: US still in Conventional War in Afghanistan via . . . Drones? . My impression that our main mission in Afghanistant was "not leaving" ...

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 2:18:27 PM | 17
    PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.

    While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment. He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he could not be trusted.'

    Let the fragging begin.

    karlof1 | Jun 18, 2016 2:34:25 PM | 18
    The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:47:29 PM | 20
    "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..."

    Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:53:45 PM | 21
    It must be the US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment for Assad and allies.

    Onslaught on ISIS: Syrian Army enters Raqqa province as Kurds, rebels advance | RT |
    ISIS Sanctuary Map – ISW (May 25, 2016)

    mik | Jun 18, 2016 2:56:33 PM | 22
    Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:

    On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the Kmeimim base.
    That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...

    jayc | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:17 PM | 24
    The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
    woogs | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:35 PM | 25
    Lol ..... Putin does a Nuland on Kerry.

    "U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."

    Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva statement!

    I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:14:29 PM | 26

    Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for sure.
    It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 3:28:52 PM | 27
    Sergei Shoigu Inspects Khmeimim Airbase in Syria

    At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message of the Defense Ministry.

    Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."

    "We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."

    Минобороны России

    Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei ‪#‎ Shoigu ‬ ordered the Chief of the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei ‪#‎Chvarkov‬ to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining national truce process.

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:52:12 PM | 30
    Saturday night snuff movie on FB! Death for real!! So cool, ain't it?
    Moloch is making cash tonigt!
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36566635
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    This coming from a 70 yr old American 'exceptionalist'. Sad.

    Yonatan | Jun 18, 2016 4:11:08 PM | 33
    To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/fsa-commander-takes-part-herzliya-conference/

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:27:24 PM | 36
    b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless who is in the WH.
    james | Jun 18, 2016 4:50:27 PM | 38
    @7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
    tom | Jun 18, 2016 4:52:42 PM | 39
    War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?

    But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other. Grotesque stupidity.

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:54:33 PM | 40
    Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...

    Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh: Part Two

    http://videos.telesurtv.net/en/video/557704/media-review-557704

    Grieved | Jun 18, 2016 5:00:58 PM | 41
    I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence, and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand up to them.

    What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.

    It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.

    Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit range of years.

    bbbb | Jun 18, 2016 5:16:13 PM | 42
    @39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is, so Syria has been quite a stretch.

    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region are until after the fact.

    I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM | 44
    Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 5:37:24 PM | 45
    At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol, made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy. Where do I enlist!

    In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo.

    Just me opinion

    [1] - http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

    dahoit | Jun 18, 2016 6:14:46 PM | 48
    I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.

    And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.

    jfl | Jun 18, 2016 6:43:57 PM | 49
    @48 dahoit

    I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the 50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 7:02:33 PM | 50
    bbbb @42:
    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip ...
    Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM | 51
    Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.

    Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.

    On the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would be in the making.

    The 50 high ranking diplomats,working for the department of state, asking Kerry to take over the Syrian state military in order to destroy the Islamic state wouldn't disagree with that. For those of you who know how to read Spanish this is the link reading of the desire of this high ranking diplomats http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Piden-funcionarios-de-Washington-derrocar-al-gobierno-sirio--20160617-0004.html .

    The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong at some point but not by the Russians as of now.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 7:38:57 PM | 52
    @tom

    "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."

    No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM | 53
    @dahoit

    I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.

    Trump is just an Obama from the left and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.

    Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for now.

    The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually) or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting to see it having such large part in modern politics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    Macon Richardson | Jun 18, 2016 9:20:58 PM | 54
    ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated.
    Robert Roth | Jun 18, 2016 10:08:06 PM | 55
    Regarding who Obama listens to, a good analysis is Bob Parry on The State Department's Collective Madness, https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/.

    A piece in today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.

    juliania | Jun 18, 2016 10:59:14 PM | 56
    Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:

    ". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."

    This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on. Very diplomatic, and wise.

    Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.) After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers for the first time since before Easter.

    It's a good time to kneel.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 18, 2016 11:33:28 PM | 57
    Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you.
    PavewayIV | Jun 19, 2016 12:26:40 AM | 60
    lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and type fast for what it's worth.

    Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.

    The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.

    Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.

    The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons, so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state. I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as well.

    If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 12:28:50 AM | 61
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    I'll second your comment; this coming from a self exiled 71 yo American radical.

    Joanne Leon | Jun 19, 2016 1:20:31 AM | 63
    This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.

    Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading up to the Warsaw summit.

    Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot to say about missiles. I wonder.

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 1:26:06 AM | 64

    @49 jfl
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/something-going-%E2%80%93-and-its-worse-you-thought

    bbbb | Jun 19, 2016 2:24:34 AM | 66
    Here's something to keep in mind as all of this goes on

    http://energyskeptic.com/2016/emerging-threats-of-resource-wars-u-s-house-hearing/

    DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year. An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.

    A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone else is inherently a world of conflict.

    Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted by political upheaval, terrorism or war.

    jfl | Jun 19, 2016 3:53:38 AM | 67
    @49 fth

    Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com, but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention, I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it, but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.

    But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest. He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row to hoe.

    But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing' whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons on his payroll.

    Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.

    I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters we'd be off and running ourselves.

    b | Jun 19, 2016 6:07:10 AM | 73
    The Russian defense ministry confirms my take. The attack was intended to push the U.S. to documented separation:

    Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation

    Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.

    The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.

    Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.

    The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.

    Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.

    Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there has been no significant progress reached.

    The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents while performing military operations in the territory of Syria

    So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up with ...

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 6:10:52 AM | 74
    @ jfl | 67
    Ok.
    Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.
    Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    @V. Arnold | 75

    Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately, under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin acted angry about it.

    The choices we have:
    a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted angry on TV for public perception.
    b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.

    So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which leaves us with option a)

    *Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats (like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:02:29 AM | 77
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
    Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class act under duress.
    I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).

    MadMax2 | Jun 19, 2016 7:18:05 AM | 78
    @48 dahoit

    Demonisation...? What do you mean...?

    Whitehall fears Russian football hooligans had Kremlin links

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/18/whitehall-suspects-kremlin-links-to-russian-euro-2016-hooligans-vladimir-putin?CMP=fb_gu

    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79
    @V. Arnold | 77

    Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal) and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:31:51 AM | 80
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79

    No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the hegemon.
    It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
    The insanity is palpable, no?

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 8:56:30 AM | 82
    @ Harry | 81

    I already posted that in #64
    and jfl reacted in #67

    In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:

    The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:

    Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?

    Flynn: I think the administration.

    Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

    Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

    Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."

    Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.

    Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:19:09 AM | 85
    Confirmation of other reports ...
    Western states amass forces in Syria | Southfront|

    Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege on the strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments by different Western states.

    The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015 and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.

    France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.

    Meanwhile, UK special forces operating on the front line alongside rebels in Syria near the Jordanian border. They participate in direct clashes, provide training and manage of the opposition group, called " New Syrian Army ."

    jflk | Jun 19, 2016 10:25:47 AM | 86
    @74 fth, 'Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.'

    Trump Says Britain Should Leave EU

    "I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."

    The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".

    Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.

    The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
    harrylaw | Jun 19, 2016 10:26:04 AM | 87
    Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists". The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1 mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:30:33 AM | 88
    Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
    ~~~
    Russian hypersonic weapons

    The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads, the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
    ~~~
    Hypersonic concept for a war

    The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:34:27 AM | 89
    @tom @Harry @From The Hague

    Putin and Medvedev spar over UN resolution on Libya - March 2011
    Medvedev imposes sanctions on Libya | RT – Aug. 2011

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:42:38 AM | 91
    @FTH | #90

    It was Medvedev's call to abstain at the UNSC on Libya ... power of the president. Putin did not agree.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 92
    Associated Press 6/19/2016
    Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
    MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their locations.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.

    The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition forces fighting the Islamic State group.

    "Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.

    Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces, "making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."

    He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 11:24:47 AM | 94
    OT (Full Article)
    Turkey border guards 'shot Syrian children' - monitors

    Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.

    A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group.

    The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which is controlled by jihadist groups.

    Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.

    More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now closed its borders to Syrians.

    The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.

    As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.

    Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.

    Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.

    Noirette | Jun 19, 2016 12:42:47 PM | 95
    IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.

    I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely vulnerable, shattered, society.

    One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are killed others just show up!

    This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either: ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters against Assad.)

    All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)

    The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,' violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no longer *that* attractive.

    Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity. 'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.

    The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.

    A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 19, 2016 1:35:42 PM | 96
    @13
    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.

    In this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands) to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi by US top political "elite".

    In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.

    Grieved | Jun 19, 2016 2:39:37 PM | 97
    @ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries for the losing side.

    It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so many ways that are not completely obvious.

    The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.

    And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against the wishes of its sponsor the US, joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some areas matters more than staying with the loser.

    It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to the boil if we want to.

    bored muslim | Jun 19, 2016 3:02:52 PM | 99
    @5 Harrylaw,

    Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] Greenspan Shocked Disbelief by Robert Borosage

    Greenspan phony "Shocked disbelief" reminds classic "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca. Compare with "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said. ..."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," ..."
    "... Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. ..."
    "... Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe: "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities. ..."
    "... But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." ..."
    "... The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar. ..."
    "... There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. ..."
    "... So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . . ..."
    "... It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. ..."
    "... If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly. ..."
    "... it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. ..."
    "... Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. ..."
    "... Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse? ..."
    "... Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway. ..."
    "... Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues ..."
    "... What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored? ..."
    "... "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca ..."
    Oct 24, 2008 | truthout.org

    by: Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future

    On October 23, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the role of federal regulators in the current financial crisis.

    It marks the end of an era. Alan Greenspan, the maestro, defender of the market fundamentalist faith, champion of deregulation, celebrator of exotic banking inventions, admitted Thursday in a hearing before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee and Oversight and Government Reform that he got it wrong.

    "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said.

    As to the fantasy that banks could regulate themselves, that markets self-correct, that modern risk management enforced prudence: "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year."

    Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. Greenspan dismissed that goofiness in response to a question from one of its right-wing purveyors, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., noting that subprime loans grew to a crisis only as the unregulated shadow financial system securitized mortgages, marketed them across the world, and pressured brokers to lower standards to generate a larger supply to meet the demand. Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe:

    "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities.

    But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."

    Now hung over from their bender, the banks could be depended upon to remain sober "for the indefinite future." Or until taxpayers' money relieves their headaches, and they are free to party once more.


    IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

    "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

    Comments

    This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.

    The only Guantanamo that the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 23:37 - Captain America (not verified)

    The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar.

    What they did dwarfs the damage caused to this country by 911, (no disrespect for the many innocents who died). However, here, every single citizen is a victim of fraud and corruption on a scale that was heretofore inconceivable. Greenspan, Bush and now Paulson have done more than Bin Laden and his hordes could do in a 100 years.

    By the way, if you protest YOU wind up locked up for being un-American. What happened America ?

    There are no free markets in

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:27 - pink elephant (not verified)

    There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. The game was always fixed and Greenspan was the ultimate shill for the fixers. The past thirty years have been an orgy of greed with common sense shoved aside for the sake of uncommon expediency. Americans became infatuated by arcane formulas and dense incomprehensible mathematics to the point that they forget simple arithmetic. America wake up it was only a dream, and a bad one at that.

    So it wasn't the

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 19:07 - Anonymous (not verified)

    So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . .

    It's clear from comments on

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:40 - afrothethics (not verified)

    It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. The truth is as plain as the nose on your face: Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the investment banks, the Bush administration and several members of Congress unobtrusively acted to consciously and knowingly to rob the national treasury for the sake of capitalism's sacred cow: capital accumulation on behalf of the nation's political and economic elite. If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly.

    We have heard statements

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 10:11 - DJK (not verified)

    We have heard statements like "the mathematical models used for knowing the behavior of derivatives based on subprime mortgages were too difficult to understand", etc. But it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. And this is why they turned a blind eye to many of the rating agencies giving many of these instruments AAA ratings. I am sure that a real investigation will reveal numerous instances of fraudulent activity in conjunction with this debacle. Those perpetrators must be identified and brought to justice. While this will not fix our current problem, it hopefully should serve as a deterrent to those who would in the future attempt to again engage in such activities.

    Well here you have it a

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:13 - Robert Iserbyt (not verified)

    Well here you have it a confessional lie from the biggest fraud perpetrator in the history of American finance Why the markets ever listened to this criminal in the first place is evidence that our entire nation should be required to take a full year of real unfettered economics just in case they don't understand what is going on now. All the pundits on MSNBC and all the talking heads should be removed from the airwaves. The Bailout what will that do? the answer lies before you.

    Sounds like the "maestro"

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 02:02 - Anonymous (not verified)

    Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. Come on, do you really think we are all so stupid to buy into the story that you couldn't predict a melt down knowing that those writing the subprimes held no responsibility for their actions? That's like giving a "get out of jail card" to someone who just created a felony! Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse?

    I'm a former real estate

    Sun, 10/26/2008 - 00:24 - two7five7one (not verified)

    I'm a former real estate broker and my son is a mortgage broker. From about 2004 through the beginning of this "greatest financial crisis since '29", we frequently talked on the phone about the disaster which would ensue when the real estate value appreciation stopped, and people were no longer fueling the economy with money borrowed against their equity, and the sub-prime loan fiasco would end. We knew it would be disastrous, and both of us were astonished that neither the FED nor congress was willing to say or do anything about it. Anyone who has witnessed over the years the cycle of boom/bust/boom/bust in the real estate market knew that after eleven years of unprecedented "boom" -- '96 through '2007 -- the "bust" would be like an earthquake. Paulson and Greenspan and their ilk now denying that they suspected this is just is just their lying to protect the GOP which was benefitting from the booming economy. They should both end up in prison, with all of the GOP members of congress who have had their hands in the cash register.

    Dance clown, dance. First

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:48 - mysterioso (not verified)

    Dance clown, dance. First you were against the FED until you became head of the FED. Then you were for trickle down economics and letting the "system" regulate itself until you saw the inevitable destruction it caused. Dance clown, dance. You should be the first one sent to prison under the "Un-American activities act". The arrogance of your testimony before the committee was appalling. You honestly couldn't believe you were wrong !!!

    Shocked disbelief, my foot.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 23:35 - slw (not verified)

    Shocked disbelief, my foot. Many of us predicted EXACTLY this outcome.

    This is like telling the Fox

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:43 - topview (not verified)

    This is like telling the Fox to watch the Hens and then walking away and trusting him to do the right thing. Government has to return to regulation and see that there is no hanky, Banky going on anymore. Monopolies have to be busted up, like the Communication industry's, the Drug industries and any other Corporations that control to much of the way the Country operates. No more Outsourcing any Government duties.

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy.

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 22:00 - radline9 (not verified)

    Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway.

    Where's Ayn Rand when you

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:53 - anglohistorian (not verified)

    Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues. We can spend trillions on war and corporate bailouts, but we can't have a single payer health system? We can't rebuild our infrastructure? Say it again- give me a break!

    What about the 1994 Act of

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:41 - Jtmonrow (not verified)

    What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored?

    "...I am shocked - shocked,

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 20:29 - Anonymous (not verified)

    "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca

    This would be the same

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 19:50 - dtroutma (not verified)

    This would be the same "shocked disbelief" expressed by Willie Sutton's mother?

    shouldn't Greenspan give his

    Sat, 10/25/2008 - 18:06 - Anonymous (not verified)

    shouldn't Greenspan give his salary and bonus back to taxpayers?

    [Jun 18, 2016] Why Did 51 American State Department Officials Dissent Against Obama and Call for Bombing Syria?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
    "... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
    "... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
    "... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
    "... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
    "... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
    "... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
    "... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
    "... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
    "... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
    "... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
    "... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
    "... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
    "... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
    "... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
    "... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet

    Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists. No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak. Brutality is the mood.

    What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's image. In an internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador, with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.

    "Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 6:27 am

    "Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"

    This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.

    On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared to ask the relevant questions.

    James Levy , June 18, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part.

    Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture? I doubt it.

    pretzelattack , June 18, 2016 at 7:36 am

    it's very plausible that clinton coordinated the leak, as the article suggests. save us, cthulhu.

    juliania , June 18, 2016 at 10:27 am

    I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.

    sleepy , June 18, 2016 at 10:17 am

    If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria.

    Lambert Strether , June 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    > What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?

    We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.

    Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition.

    1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.

    2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".

    This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort to block the use of this to start a war

    MikeNY , June 18, 2016 at 9:55 am

    but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part

    +1

    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from, I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
    I'd be interested in your views on this

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil. And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US assertions that Assar was responsible.

    In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin," as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.

    But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.

    After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.

    MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August 2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….

    She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/state-department-officials-push-for-military-intervention-in-syria/

    The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end, where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?

    Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats the same untruths.

    Sheesh.

    tony , June 18, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. A Family Business of Perpetual War

    If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia.

    PlutoniumKun , June 18, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved. Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements of the government establishment.

    The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.

    Procopius , June 18, 2016 at 8:16 am

    A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.

    art guerrilla , June 18, 2016 at 9:53 am

    "A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"

    um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…

    besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner, i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's reign of Empire… pass the soma, please…

    DJG , June 18, 2016 at 10:50 am

    Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism? These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends and agendas…

    Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Speaking of fealty, this from John Robb of Global Guerillas a few days ago.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 11:58 am

    There's a simple solution, however. Congress can cut the State Dept. budget to zero.

    There's an old saying, "If you stop paying them, they stop showing up for work."

    wellclosed , June 18, 2016 at 7:40 am

    It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the " Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time – not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern, very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to garner support for our noble casus belli.

    twonine , June 18, 2016 at 7:42 am

    Per Ray McGovern (RT interview this AM), the 51 are bucking for a promotion with the prospective new boss.

    grizziz , June 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Once upon a time, even some editor at the WaPo let a little corner of the seraglio tent get lifted:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-scandal-puts-four-star-general-lifestyle-under-scrutiny/2012/11/17/33a14f48-3043-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    And of course you have a recent general officer who out-grabbed himself, selling very top secret Navy info on for money, prostitutes etc. to a guy nicknamed "Fat Leonard." Was allowed to plead to the lesser offense of lying to investigators. Bullshit, Just fokking bullshit. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/10/us-navy-admiral-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-investigators-in-fat-leonard-bribery-case.html

    An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000 the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in "the system?"

    Sam Adams , June 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats.

    John , June 18, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded moves and dismissed it.

    ArkansasAngie , June 18, 2016 at 8:12 am

    I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.

    HRC is no Gandhi.

    False flags
    Circumventing laws

    Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.

    That is change I do not believe in.

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

    See also Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area expertise in the Middle East.

    afisher , June 18, 2016 at 9:17 am

    I agree. I would add that Victoria Nuland has been in DC with week being grilled (/s) by Congress.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:55 am

    "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Cutting to the chase.

    A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.

    Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy. But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?

    Ignim Brites , June 18, 2016 at 8:43 am

    Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.

    Cry Shop , June 18, 2016 at 9:33 am

    Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for "leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.

    Top Democrat officials are TERRIFIED that Hillary campaign IS IN FREEFALL! – Carl Bernstein

    Mark John , June 18, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The leak is ridiculous and ham-handed, but that is nothing new.

    I hope we will all keep in mind what starts these wars and keeps them alive, as well as global warming and wealth inequality. THE PROFIT MOTIVE.

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 9:49 am

    This whole election is like a military coup.

    redleg , June 18, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Corporate. The military would have some kind of plan for afterward. HRC and the Clintonian daleks see the election itself as the end game.

    NYPaul , June 18, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Questions, questions.

    Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S. Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So, maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Is it true that State Dept. employees are investing in Ukrainian utilities?

    oho , June 18, 2016 at 10:38 am

    yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments and upvotes flooded.

    by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.

    Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised" that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?

    nothing but the truth , June 18, 2016 at 10:45 am

    these guys are sending a "hire me" signal to goldman sachs and other (((tribe))) operations.

    Chauncey Gardiner , June 18, 2016 at 11:00 am

    Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these 51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require their resignations.

    steelhead23 , June 18, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent. Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.

    Denis Drew , June 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

    So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!! Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity - more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that. We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.

    My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any) but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.

    If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki, under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition - instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority) that's not hard, and worked with them.

    We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan. These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they can sneak past the TSA in airports.

    However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running terrorist training camps.

    Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Another real problem is how Al Q tend to terrorize the captive populations, especially the females.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I guess we could call that the worser of two evils?

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 11:57 am

    There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

    I genuinely hope that our current state of foreign relations is not filled with actors following a 'Realist' school of thought:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

    Ultimately who knows, but this might be one motivation behind 51 diplomats calling for the bombing of Syria.

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    International relations following Machiavelli and Hobbes is a very bad thing.

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story

    But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]

    As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…]

    As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]

    when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made you sound soft.

    More here–all good.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/

    Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills. This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.

    Gaylord , June 18, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed, exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.

    oh , June 18, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    I wonder if this memo is really meant to the legacy of the current administration by showing how it resisted the efforts of the hawks?

    Sluggeaux , June 18, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent" have come from the White House ?

    Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 10, 2016] In 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud and he has governed center right because he has a neocon much like Bush 11 and Clinton were

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't. ..."
    "... Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo. ..."
    "... However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud ..."
    "... With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton. ..."
    "... ike Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class. ..."
    "... You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible? ..."
    "... NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignity, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    Yves Smith Post author

    Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't.

    He similarly could have passed real financial services industry reform and didn't. Dodd Frank was weak tea and had many of its provisions kicked over for study and later rulemaking, which was designed to let the industry have another go at watering it down. Danny Tarullo at the Fed singlehandedly has been a more effective force for reform than the Obama Administration.

    The Obama administration enabled the taking by bank servicer of millions of homes when investors in those securitizations preferred modifications.

    And please tell me what Obama has done in terms of improvements in consumer rights. The only thing I can think of is the CFPB's proposed rulemaking on mandatory arbitration. The only reason we got that is basically due to how Elizabeth Warren started up the CFPB, by creating a solid culture that held up over time. And he gave her that job with the hope she'd screw it up, not succeed. She had become a huge thorn in Timothy Geithner's side and they wanted to take her down a peg. But that plan backfired.

    We wrote at GREAT length at the time how the FCIC was designed to do a crappy job and it did. By contrast, Ronald Reagan formed the Brady Commission to investigate the 1987 crash ten days after it happened, had it staffed with serious people, not lightweights like Phil Angildes (well meaning but out of his depth) and a subpoena process that guaranteed that no real investigation could or would be done. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, a Bush holderover who represented a continuation of the Greenspan policies that led to the crisis and bailed out the banks, imposed no executive or board changes, and did not pump for reform. By contrast, the Bank of England was much tougher with banks and fought tooth and nail for a Glass-Steagall type breakup of banks (it was stymied by the UK Treasury and got a partial win).

    Gay rights? You mean Obama's weak and late endorsement of gay marriage? That's not legal action.

    And the ACA was not "reform" but a program for more rent extraction by pharma and insurers. Did you manage to miss that the biggest groups funding the Obama campaign were the financial services industry, tech, and the medical/industrial complex?

    It strengthened the position of insurers, and allows for profit levels that were higher than the industry enjoyed before the bill was passed. Obama never tried to sell single payer (in fact, his operatives targeted groups that advocated it), and was never serious about a public option. He took that off the table and got no concession from the other side. You never give a free concession in bargaining, ever. He just didn't want people talking about it any more.

    The ACA has harmed a lot of people. Everyone I know who has to get a policy under the ACA is worse off. It is a nightmare for self employed people and people with erratic incomes. The only real benefit has been Medicaid expansion. And the ACA is going into a death spiral anyhow.

    You really need to get out and deal with facts, not Democratic party/Administration PR.

    More generally, you are selling the line "Obama was constrained." Bollocks. Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo.

    The success of the Sanders campaign, despite the MSM efforts to first ignore it and then ridicule it, shows how strong public support is for true progressive positions. If the Administration had gone in that direction, it would have had public opinion behind it and the media would have fallen in line.

    I suggest you read:

    Felix_47

    Thank you for saying the obvious. And thank you for the Politico article which formulated my view as well and I am easily in the 1%, white, over educated and travelled, male and in the sixth decade. And I have mailed in my vote for Bernie. However in the cafeteria today one of the workers was talking about how he thought Bernie would kill in in CA and I reminded him he needed to vote since he was for him and his comment scared me…….He said he would vote for Bernie in the general but that he was registered as an independent because he does not believe in any of the parties and that he could not vote for Bernie……..but he said it did not matter…..unfortunately our precariate is not necessarily fully aware of the hoops required to vote…..and I am certain he is not alone…..there are many that want Bernie but just don't have it together to be able to vote for him.

    Waldenpond

    Yes, I just posted this…. 40% of NPPs that claimed to want to vote for Sanders just sent in their NPP ballots. They simply did not bother to request a D ballot.

    Lambert Strether
  • Print this out and put it on the fridge, if you have a fridge.
  • (I'd also add that prosecuting banksters for accounting control fraud was under Obama's control at Justice, and would have been wildly popular across the political spectrum. Instead we got "I stand between you and the pitchforks."
  • Waldenpond

    Your back on memeorandum….which is pro-Clinton, ignore/excoriate Sanders today (well, most days)

    I did not read any of them, just the highlight that pops up….

    LGM… the people you know are 'dumb'
    DeLong is sorry he ever linked to you….
    Echidne of the Snakes… rotting, stinking something or other and your commenters are not representative of the D party.

    Steve in Dallas

    Yikes… "Barack Obama, a transformational figure, has moved the US back to the left – as much as possible"???

    At 45yo in late 2007 I was a "political naif"… still trusting the mainstream media. However, the Murdoch/FOX takeover of the WSJ pushed me to the internet… to follow the 'big crash'. Independent media sites like NakedCapitalism were so obviously and infinitely better to anything in the MSM I quickly was begging family/friends/everybody… "Please turn off the MSM. I learned more in one month reading the IM than I learned reading the WSJ daily for 20 years! The MSM is total garbage and totally corrupt"… BOYCOTT the MSM.

    Regarding Obama? All through 2008 I followed the IM election coverage, listened to his and Michael's campaign speeches. The message was clear… Obama was going to stop the out-of-control criminal banksters and Wall Streeters… AND stop the crazed out-of-control war criminals… MUCH more than Hillary! However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud. He immediately surrounded himself with the exact same economic and war criminals from the Clinton and Bush administrations. With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton.

    Like Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class.

    1) You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible?

    2) Even more audaciously disingenuous… "Clinton – pushed by progressive supporters – would continue that transformation". Bill's a neolib and Hillary is not? How is that possible?

    3) Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were all consistent at creating your list of problems… "social justice issues, living wages, reversal of supply-side economic policy, protecting Social Security and other government agencies from privatization, and ending the Citizens United campaign finance regime… Supreme Court justice… Senate to provide its advice and consent"… and Hillary is here to fix those problems?

    4) To me your post sounds like just another TINA (there is no alternative) threat from the 5% telling the working class 95% slobs to back down and just take what they're given.

    I'm totally 100% with Yves' description of NC readers… NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY.

    Thank you so much Yves… we/I love you!!!

    [Jun 10, 2016] This despicable, corrupt Clinton-style neocon Obama

    Notable quotes:
    "... He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. ..."
    "... His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else. ..."
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. ..."
    "... His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. ..."
    "... His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. ..."
    "... He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. ..."
    "... He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.

    He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment.

    His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    1. Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers.
    2. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on.
    3. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best.
    4. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime.
    5. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right.
    6. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    [Jun 06, 2016] Got privacy If you use Twitter or a smartphone, maybe not so much

    www.pcworld.com
    May 18, 2016

    PCWorld

    You're probably giving away more than you think

    The location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can help even low-tech stalkers find you, researchers found.

    The notion of online privacy has been greatly diminished in recent years, and just this week two new studies confirm what to many minds is already a dismal picture.

    First, a study reported on Monday by Stanford University found that smartphone metadata-information about calls and text messages, such as time and length-can reveal a surprising amount of personal detail.

    To investigate their topic, the researchers built an Android app and used it to retrieve the metadata about previous calls and text messages-the numbers, times, and lengths of communications-from more than 800 volunteers' smartphone logs. In total, participants provided records of more than 250,000 calls and 1.2 million texts.

    The researchers then used a combination of automated and manual processes to understand just what's being revealed. What they found was that it's possible to infer a lot more than you might think.

    A person who places multiple calls to a cardiologist, a local drug store, and a cardiac arrhythmia monitoring device hotline likely suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, for example. Based on frequent calls to a local firearms dealer that prominently advertises AR semiautomatic rifles and to the customer support hotline of a major manufacturer that produces them, it's logical to conclude that another likely owns such a weapon.

    The researchers set out to fill what they consider knowledge gaps within the National Security Agency's current phone metadata program. Currently, U.S. law gives more privacy protections to call content and makes it easier for government agencies to obtain metadata, in part because policymakers assume that it shouldn't be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata alone.

    This study, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests otherwise. Preliminary versions of the work have already played a role in federal surveillance policy debates and have been cited in litigation filings and letters to legislators in both the U.S. and abroad.

    It takes as few as eight tweets to locate someone

    Researchers at MIT and Oxford University, meanwhile, have shown that the location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can be enough to let even a low-tech snooper find out where you live and work.

    Though Twitter's location-reporting service is off by default, many Twitter users choose to activate it. Now, it looks like even as few as eight tweets over the course of a single day can give stalkers what they need to track you down.

    The researchers used real tweets from Twitter users in the Boston area; users consented to the use of their data and also confirmed their home and work addresses, their commuting routes, and the locations of various leisure destinations from which they had tweeted.

    The time and location data associated with the tweets were then presented to a group of 45 study participants, who were asked to try to deduce whether the tweets had originated at the Twitter users' homes, workplaces, leisure destinations or commute locations.

    Bottom line: They had little trouble figuring it out. Equipped with map-based representations, participants correctly identified Twitter users' homes roughly 65 percent of the time and their workplaces at closer to 70 percent.

    Part of a more general project at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative, the paper was presented last week at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

    "Many people have this idea that only machine-learning techniques can discover interesting patterns in location data, and they feel secure that not everyone has the technical knowledge to do that," said Ilaria Liccardi, a research scientist at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative and first author on the paper. "What we wanted to show is that when you send location data as a secondary piece of information, it is extremely simple for people with very little technical knowledge to find out where you work or live."

    Twitter said it does not comment on third-party research, but directed users to online information about its optional location feature.

    [May 30, 2016] MH17 Coroner Michael Barnes, Australian Lawyers in Head-On Crash With the Rules of Evidence

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."

    Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons', as criminal investigations are still under way."

    Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or any other media."

    The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest. Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and Huntsdale were provided with the story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available. But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.

    The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it appeared originally, on May 17 .

    Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence, and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale: "The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations) and forensic pathology reports."

    One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the passengers and crew was inconclusive.

    Donoghoe also said : "it was also necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB report."

    By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB report they relied on for this conclusion.

    Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it here .

    The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman, "the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."

    Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked, and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."

    The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.

    The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring the risks and flying through the conflict zone.

    On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.

    "'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient in facing the challenges,' said Najib."

    According to a spokesman for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis , May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…

    and then where might that lead to…

    even more expectations…

    and you know where that might lead to…

    peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy…

    so none of that, thank you very much….

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    Anyone know what compensation was paid to the victims of that Iranian airliner the US Navy shot down back in 1988?

    Harry , May 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    US$75k each. But that was an accident ;)

    Jagger , May 30, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.

    polecat , May 30, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Are the Ausralian public that clueless and /or crazy enough not to push for the truth…or do they love Murdoch so much they just don't care??

    [May 30, 2016] Red Hot Jingoism, With a Side of Apple Pie

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Peruse, if you will, this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction that a new western strategy is the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep, it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?

    We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that fabricated a case for war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people, prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms – Hill & Knowlton – coached the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why, it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.

    What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia began to muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country. It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.

    And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based missile defense system has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?

    If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg; mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability, so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines. The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally, Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.

    ... ... ...

    This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.

    The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were in 1947.

    Patient Observer , May 24, 2016 at 10:16 am
    Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.

    We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output (don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet missiles.

    So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.

    One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)

    Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian Union proceeds.

    Northern Star , May 24, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    Depending on how things go in November….one must remember that Santa Coup could come down the White House chimney….
    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    …everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
    ####

    John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!

    It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.

    [May 26, 2016] Out of the Cold War? by Caroline Dorminey

    Notable quotes:
    "... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
    "... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
    May 23, 2016 | theamericanconservative.com
    "CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:

    The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us.

    ... ... ...

    Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."

    [May 26, 2016] Nearly everyone concerned is trying to prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability

    Notable quotes:
    "... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 9:42 am

    John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710

    An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….

    ####

    Much more at the link of course.

    marknesop , May 24, 2016 at 11:31 am
    That nearly everyone concerned is trying to

    (a) prevent the investigation from widening beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and

    (b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.

    What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia, but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.

    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 24, 2016] 'I'm not with her': why women are wary of Hillary Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do? ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    FDiscussion , 2016-05-23 19:20:33
    how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
    Lisa Glass Calvert , 2016-05-23 19:19:18
    Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.

    Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans. Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!

    MartiniShaken1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:19:14

    You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like that.

    You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but high-level campaign contributors.

    This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.

    We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4 years in hopes that something good will happen.

    But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?

    Alexander Nekrasov , 2016-05-23 19:17:37
    the question should not be why some don't trust Clinton, but why some still do?
    BlooEyedDevil casta1139diva , 2016-05-23 19:16:58
    Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring, and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
    aguy777 Paul Little , 2016-05-23 19:16:33
    Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?

    And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??

    FrederikII nevermind84 , 2016-05-23 19:13:41
    What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in the Oval Office.

    I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where you are heading.

    Smells TheRat , 2016-05-23 19:13:33
    Her Thighness has certainly used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and Slick Willie...
    RecantedYank , 2016-05-23 19:11:28
    I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.

    The only difference between the two on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a right to health care!

    Hillary for women...my aunt fanny's a**!

    Obelisk1 aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:09:17
    I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.

    That Clinton was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.

    If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to pick someone else.

    Paul Little somebody_stopme , 2016-05-23 19:09:22
    And she runs on Bills record, not her own
    FrederikII InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:07:43
    Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not untypical of Clinton supporters.

    Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding the reins of power again.

    DHBarr InnocenceAbroad , 2016-05-23 19:06:14
    How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to a mental institution.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 19:03:19
    Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing to fight back with and stop her slide.
    FrederikII aguy777 , 2016-05-23 18:57:04
    You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone he was getting nowhere.

    The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your ...

    [May 20, 2016] Nearly all German corporations/large companies funded the NSDAP rise and were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of slave Labor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy. ..."
    "... Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries. ..."
    "... Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ambrit , May 19, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    I G Farben isn't alone in Holocaust related evilness. Check out IBMs' part, through their German subsidiary, in making the efficiency of the "Final Solution" feasible. Figures for the liquidation of "undesirables" were available to the New York headquarters of IBM in nearly real time.

    As the war wound down, special units attached to the U.S.Army secured and protected IBM 'assets' in Germany, mainly the hardware and specialists who ran things.

    See: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/pdf/HistoryofIBMDataProcessing.pdf

    The best source I find is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

    human , May 19, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    Operation Paperclip

    RP , May 19, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy.

    But what do I know, I'm just a little prole with no Ivy league credentials. I should just trust my betters.

    By all means, go ahead, coronate another .01%er Oligarch to be President. Worked great so far.

    HBE , May 19, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries.

    What happened to them and their leaders. Not much, some were broken up (IG farben) some leaders spent a short stint in prison (alfried Krupp) but nearly all of the largest were allowed to immediately or eventually (Krupp) go on their merry way, so we could "stop communism".

    So the very people that funded and were integral to the Nazi party having the funds and ability to rise and benefited most, were slightly scolded at most.

    Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around.

    [May 11, 2016] Every defeat is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now

    Notable quotes:
    "... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
    "... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    yinyanggrl Jason Ma 10 May 2016 22:26

    Trump will be 70 in less than a month, Sanders is 74. Not a huge difference. The main difference is hair dye and injections.

    ucic , 2016-05-11 03:32:02

    Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote? Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
    Eugene Harvey johnjohn12 , 2016-05-11 03:28:39
    I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want. Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind.
    It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
    Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would do.


    Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 03:16:38
    Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost no votes counted, with their ridiculous little Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality, Sanders and done it again.

    The Fat Lady is starting to get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.

    RobertAussie danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:03:09
    Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's lost on you.)
    Informed17 danielnc , 2016-05-11 03:01:42
    Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both.

    Siamesemama1 , 2016-05-11 02:50:15
    Guardian: I'm getting tired of waiting for a fair headline from you, for example, "Bernie Takes West Virginia in May 10th state primary" instead of "Trump this, Trump that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah, blah". It's as simple as Who, What, When, Where & Why-accurately reported. As taught in 9th grade journalism classes.
    Im waiting for an article without the negatives such as West Virginians only voted for Sanders because they are waiting to vote for Trump.
    It's bad enough to have Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros., the banksters, the Supreme Court et al subverting our democracy, must you join in as well?
    Bernie's formidable & we, his supporters are tenacious!
    GO BERNIE!!!!
    WarlockScott JimmySands , 2016-05-11 02:40:41
    Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller demographic group by giving them someone to blame and displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned with the Independent voting block who have massive concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
    relgin Severus1 , 2016-05-11 02:40:12
    Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do anything to get what she wants.
    BaldwinP whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 02:31:59
    The point is that while Sanders gets support from people to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
    exdiplomat ArchieWahWah , 2016-05-11 02:27:04
    Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate interests in government, and has self funded his campaign as a result, team up with a person who is the living embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI investigation thrown in for good measure.

    Do not trust her. Do not want her.

    PrinceVlad ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-11 02:26:56
    He says it was a disaster, is against regime change, questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
    PlayaGiron , 2016-05-11 02:24:43
    How is Sanders campaign "quixotic"?

    Just report the fucking news without the insults!!

    exdiplomat USfan , 2016-05-11 02:17:56
    Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then I'm voting Trump.

    The problem is corruption in government, and how the government and economy are rigged.

    Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton... with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part of the problem, and certainly not the solution.

    krnewman , 2016-05-11 02:11:34
    Once again we have uniformly lousy, almost criminally responsibly terrible political reporting from the Guardian concerning the Democratic Party's race. I come expecting you to be awful and you never disappoint. You know nothing, you understand nothing.
    WarlockScott Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 02:09:19
    Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you consider certain studies...

    TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders's proposals, TPC said.

    Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

    Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the average American's pocket

    erik_ny Arsenaltribe , 2016-05-11 01:54:00
    She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all. For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in significant numbers.

    I would refrain from too many predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of reference for what's going to come next. Except that we're in for a wild ride.

    to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement & controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him to win

    furrypuppet , 2016-05-11 01:45:10
    Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course don't mean anything.

    Because of the large number of comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line we will be closing this blog shortly.

    Sam3456 justdoug , 2016-05-11 01:42:48
    You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.

    Except for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a "socialist" there is not much else he has in common with Lenin.

    Sam3456 USfan , 2016-05-11 01:37:33
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html


    495620 MtnClimber , 2016-05-11 01:33:56
    Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate these people rationally, they are paid to distort and reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
    RonaldMcDonald666 Eugene Harvey , 2016-05-11 01:30:23
    Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up. This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy. It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
    whyohwhy1 , 2016-05-11 01:25:38
    Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want more liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".

    SeenItAlready CurtBrown , 2016-05-11 01:19:19
    My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who have some form of personality disorder which means that they are only interested in unending self-enrichment beyond any from of rational limit, all at the expense of *everybody else* on the planet

    The article rather backs this up, and furthermore points out that at least some of these same people were also backing the frightful Cruz until he dropped out of the race

    Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary now you have this information?

    dutchcookie , 2016-05-11 01:13:16
    Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
    There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
    There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one (?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first lady.
    The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking down the road already

    If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the lines.....................

    Vermouth Brilliantine suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 01:12:46
    True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving, email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton- expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Sam3456 dopamineboy , 2016-05-11 01:07:11
    Clinton = Moderate Republican

    Psyren Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 01:03:50
    Yes Clinton is cleverly using a LEGAL way to bypass campaign financing laws thanks to her joint account with the DNC.
    Although, to be fair, she is not the first candidate to do that.
    The legality is not for debate here but I won't say that much about the morality...

    Sam3456 Michronics42 , 2016-05-11 00:59:16
    She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.

    That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Markmarkmark56 , 2016-05-11 00:51:55
    "But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."

    Exactly! The Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II twice! Well...once, really.

    SeenItAlready suddenoakdeath , 2016-05-11 00:48:40
    Where did I say that? Bit of an 'Ad Hominem' from you there I'm afraid

    Here's another link showing where some of that money is going:
    Pro-Hillary PAC Spending $1 Million to Hire Online Trolls

    Are you benefiting directly from it or are you just doing this out of the goodness of your heart?

    SeenItAlready , 2016-05-11 00:37:10
    Today's article in The Guardian: Top 25 hedge fund managers earned $13bn in 2015 – more than some nations

    Quote:

    Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker, has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.

    The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound, has donated $13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race, Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than $2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has donated more than $7m to Clinton.

    Just saying...

    westoeden ucic , 2016-05-11 00:34:16
    The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they aren't doing that.
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-11 00:30:30
    Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.

    Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.

    Huples , 2016-05-11 00:17:58
    Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased voters make up their minds.

    Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?

    Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding their speeches.

    RonaldMcDonald666 ImaHack , 2016-05-11 00:10:02
    Because the mainstream media is just a propaganda machine for big money interests makes them a horrid place to look for facts
    Bonita Goodrich , 2016-05-11 00:09:49
    Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
    nomdinterweb judyblue , 2016-05-10 23:51:44
    My Graun headline predictions, if Sanders wins by any margin large or small today:

    "Clinton Narrowly Defeated in West Virginia But Wins Several Delegates"

    "Is This the Last Stop on the Road for the Sanders Campaign?"

    "Trump [insert any random story here]"

    Anyone else? Virtual Snickers as prize for the closest prediction...

    TEESMEE , 2016-05-10 23:31:50
    This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media, unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
    marshwren Pleasetickother3 , 2016-05-10 22:50:21
    Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
    Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders' in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
    It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses) with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect of losing the presidency anyway.
    rumirules , 2016-05-10 22:47:54
    Two things happened in New York in July 2015.

    1) The New York Board of Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.

    2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging ~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other apparently more pressing business

    http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/board-elections-managers-huge-pay-raises-article-1.2270469
    http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/doe-chief-ryan-commissioners-knew-mass-purging-voters-records-show /

    DogsLivesMatter AppalledAmerican , 2016-05-10 22:15:23
    Nobody in Congress works anymore. They spend the majority of their time looking for donations. This was from 60 minutes a few weeks back: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers /

    [May 07, 2016] So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32
    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] If Hillary ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
    "... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
    "... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
    "... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
    "... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
    "... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
    "... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
    "... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
    "... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
    "... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
    "... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
    "... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
    "... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
    "... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
    "... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
    "... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
    "... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
    "... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
    "... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
    "... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
    "... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
    "... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
    "... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
    "... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
    "... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
    "... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
    "... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
    "... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    MOZGODRK , 2016-05-04 17:34:33
    There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.

    So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.

    Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November, America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.

    Timothy Everton -> MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 17:33:50
    I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
    I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
    Manami , 2016-05-04 17:33:14
    Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!

    The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it.

    RobertHickson2014 -> Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:33:13
    In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.

    Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.

    UNOINO -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:31:26
    Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do.

    Election Fraud Special Report!

    kalpa108 -> OpineOpiner , 2016-05-04 17:30:36
    You beat me too it! Guardian-why is it a shock victory? Just report the news in an impartial manner, please.

    Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there.

    Its no shock at all.

    4hundred -> Genevieve K. Doyle , 2016-05-04 17:30:33
    I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins.
    MOPtimusP -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 17:29:48
    That's actually not strictly true.... Many states have laws that criminalize pledged delegates breaking their pledge... They can go to jail
    RobertHickson2014 -> talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:28:39
    In all of 2015, Bernie received a total of 10 minutes of coverage from ABC network.
    lostinbago -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 17:27:50
    Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
    Carmel Day -> ClareLondon , 2016-05-04 17:26:08
    The world gave up on the US years ago!!
    lostinbago -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 17:24:56
    I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders to a Fascist.
    Matt062 , 2016-05-04 17:23:57
    Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination "this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown what pull he has in this primary season.

    The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".

    talenttruth , 2016-05-04 17:23:06
    The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).

    The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.

    Margaret Telford , 2016-05-04 17:22:03
    This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
    4hundred -> ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-05-04 17:18:46
    well we should just ditch the super delegates outright
    lostinbago -> Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 17:14:44
    That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there is no coverage?
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-04 16:54:51
    When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.

    After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there.

    "In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary."

    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html

    Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations without any SuperPacs.

    Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.

    Ladyhawke1 , 2016-05-04 16:52:18
    There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.

    When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.

    There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)

    Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own faults and individually we are on our own.

    Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare, that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.

    It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my taxes to go to war, war and more war.

    Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start getting smarter?

    amacd2 , 2016-05-04 16:38:59

    Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.

    metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud, courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.

    Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:

    "There's something happening here
    But what it is ain't exactly clear ...

    Stop, children, what's that sound?
    Everybody look what's going down"

    This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"

    Kevin P Brown -> nevermind84 , 2016-05-04 16:38:50
    Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical.
    MAINEindependent , 2016-05-04 16:25:19
    Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.

    For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.

    Merle Le Blanc -> HammyFooter , 2016-05-04 16:24:30
    wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
    California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
    Merle Le Blanc , 2016-05-04 16:18:52
    Here's what the Guardian refuses to report, the obvious reason for the private server, and the destruction of evidence, watergate-style.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/most-firms-that-gave-to-clinton-foundation-also-lobbied-state-department/article/2564553
    RobertHickson2014 -> Julie Doering-Christiany , 2016-05-04 16:18:10
    Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 16:16:25
    Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.

    That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.

    Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....

    Source for delegate counts: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats /

    Ussurisk -> Riverdale , 2016-05-04 16:10:32

    NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.

    Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).

    ID0248595 , 2016-05-04 16:08:04
    If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
    He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
    Kevin P Brown -> AuntieMame , 2016-05-04 16:06:50
    Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?

    "In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."

    Ussurisk -> Tamás Stiller , 2016-05-04 16:03:52
    At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State" Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.

    Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.

    Martin Thompson -> andthensome , 2016-05-04 15:57:22
    Haha a sheep cheering for the farmer as he is dragged away for slaughter. Smacks of Stockholm syndrome.
    skells , 2016-05-04 15:56:11
    No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism

    I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky, partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in places with few delegates available.

    This is factually incorrect as a 30 second look on wikipedia shows:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Oregon

    Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
    The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.

    The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).

    It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...

    Ussurisk , 2016-05-04 15:54:25
    The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
    How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
    She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.

    Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.

    Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ...

    Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

    jgwilson55 , 2016-05-04 15:52:39
    Dan & Ben,

    Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).

    http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-bilking-state-democrats

    Jay Bennett , 2016-05-04 15:39:39
    Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383 pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged. Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
    Merle Le Blanc -> Jackblob , 2016-05-04 15:35:30
    actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations. Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their $3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
    nanciel , 2016-05-04 15:30:39

    Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters

    Hah! What a joke!

    Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all...
    Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil .

    Dorothy2 , 2016-05-04 15:19:24
    Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters.
    Longleveler , 2016-05-04 14:59:00
    "Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
    'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
    More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
    Merle Le Blanc -> aguy777 , 2016-05-04 14:58:41
    who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April 7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
    Alan Herbertz -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:51:23
    This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual, every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the 1st female president.

    Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.

    TurkBuddy -> JaneThomas , 2016-05-04 14:50:33
    At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency, but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.

    On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.

    [May 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders pulls off shock victory over Hillary Clinton in Indiana

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    "... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
    "... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
    "... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
    "... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
    "... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
    "... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
    "... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
    "... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
    "... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
    "... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
    "... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
    "... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
    "... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
    "... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
    "... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    Kevin P Brown -> Carly435 , 2016-05-05 19:28:39
    Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an interesting question as to what he stands for.

    His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet, depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford to report this factual development.

    When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed. So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.

    Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.

    Kevin P Brown -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 19:19:20
    "Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."

    So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?

    dutchview -> lsbg_t , 2016-05-05 18:17:57
    Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.

    The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".

    Vladimir Makarenko -> digit , 2016-05-05 17:00:45
    First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
    Both give today's Clinton of 6% when Sanders is whopping 13+%
    So when Hillary's shills preaching how easily she "beats" Trump, they lie. Only Bernie can do this or or see Oval Office moved to Atlantic City.
    luminog -> simpledino , 2016-05-05 12:48:54
    If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.

    Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she has been involved in.

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:23:14
    You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office.

    Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.

    " http://www.blackpressusa.com/is-black-america-better-off-under-obama /

    "Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.

    What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that.

    Kevin P Brown -> Kevin P Brown , 2016-05-05 12:16:44
    "All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is, a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families. Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi- cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 12:16:13
    "What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."

    We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for their issues.

    http://tomweston.net/ReichRacism.pdf

    Try reading this.

    " that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"

    Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent.

    "The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys- tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing. Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as- pects in a unified manner."

    My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish. But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.

    " money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"

    No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid, we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people. Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It is a moral corruption.

    "most contributions come after electoral success"

    Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation to favour us over the voters.

    You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation. Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.

    We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.

    Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.

    digit -> Vladimir Makarenko , 2016-05-05 12:07:33
    Sorry, I mean, here .
    buttonbasher81 -> o_lobo_solitario , 2016-05-05 12:06:44
    Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now, surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election (you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
    Longasyourarm -> Genpet , 2016-05-05 11:47:49
    the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard.
    Longasyourarm -> nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 11:44:57
    explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
    Eric L. Wattree , 2016-05-05 09:19:27
    BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
    .
    If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination, we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
    .
    WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
    IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-05 08:20:53
    Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line. I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now? Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.

    I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion? Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.

    You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.

    I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .

    SavvasKara -> irishgaf , 2016-05-05 05:32:13
    It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.

    I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:28:00

    It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered that it doesn't even faze them

    One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues? Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.

    Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 05:06:51
    Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent, crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.

    Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/05/03/bernstein-there-will-be-very-damaging-leaks-from-hillary-email-investigation-her-actions-reckless-and-entitled /

    nemesis7 , 2016-05-05 03:24:50
    Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.

    Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives.

    Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost its way.

    Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people.

    And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI and she doesn't stand down?

    Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America.

    I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.

    macktan894 -> RobInTN , 2016-05-05 02:29:31
    Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
    Allan Barr , 2016-05-05 02:21:15
    Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true. A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer security expert.

    Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.

    Carly435 -> RobertHickson2014 , 2016-05-05 02:05:34
    And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager, Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead, Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....

    Oy. ^__^

    But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg

    Some background:

    https://www.americarisingpac.org/sheldon-silver-critical-to-hillary-clinton-political-machine /

    In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support

    So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."

    John W , 2016-05-05 01:42:54
    Sanders is also leading in the West Virginia polls, which is the next primary. He just might be able to squeak out a victory.
    Robin Crawford -> Rouffian , 2016-05-05 01:07:15
    If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it).

    If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.

    nomorebanksters -> Jonah92 , 2016-05-04 23:43:43
    You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
    Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.

    She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?

    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 23:10:01
    So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty. You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and poverty.

    "" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike . "

    nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

    You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about you than Sanders.

    nomorebanksters -> TehachapiCalifornia , 2016-05-04 23:04:08
    Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA

    He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
    So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?

    nomorebanksters -> nolashea , 2016-05-04 22:57:13
    Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
    Kevin P Brown -> hillbillyzombie , 2016-05-04 22:31:08
    "Are you really sure that money buys votes"

    Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.

    [May 07, 2016] Diplomacy by Deception by John Coleman

    When you have read "Diplomacy by Deception " by John Coleman you might start to suspect that the British and United States Governments are actually the most corrupt in the world and third word dictators are just wannabes in comparison with those governments (and often are corrupted by them, storing the loot in Western banks and moving families to GB, France, Italy or Spain ). They completely betrayed interests of their own population carrying out the designs of global neoliberal elite (globalists), to which former President Bush I, one of its more able servants, referred to as "the New World Order." The first significant reaction against this level of corruption was spontaneous burst of support to Donald Trump during 2016 elections.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. ..."
    Amazon.com

    Amazon Customer, June 19, 2001

    Give me Documentation

    This book has much information helpful to those following government intrusion into world affairs. The history book MI6, can verify some, but I found this book lacking in documentation. The author has source notes, but most of his statements can't be used due to the poor documentation. I am hesitant to qoute statements he makes in the book. His Index is also poor. However, the book is good for general information of many illegal acts by the Council of foreign Relations. You'll just have to do a lot more reading to verify several comments he makes in the book.

    Paul LaCross Simonton, April 29, 2002

    Dr. John Coleman's best

    Every chapter in Diplomacy by Deception is a new subject. I am just guessing, but, it appears to me that Dr. Coleman took a selection of monographs he wrote, and, made them into a book.

    Oscar L. Vazquez, November 8, 1999

    Very, very good book

    As an avid history reader, the information that Dr. Coleman exposed in this book explained the unexplainable about historical facts, the manipulation of the situations and the secret purposes behind the reality. I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. It is a very hard book to understand for those who are not involved in policy or history. Congratulations once again Dr. Coleman for this great book.

    [May 06, 2016] Ted Cruz, the master strategist, was no match for Trumps cult of personality

    Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess ? Interesting...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
    "... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
    "... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
    "... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
    "... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
    "... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    bhyujn -> Bohemina1 5 May 2016 13:54

    No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness. Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.

    bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18

    "happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted them out like props, is exhibit A.

    bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08

    My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    Definitely true.

    However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.

    The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.

    fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02

    I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump" by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to change his policy positions.

    Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.

    He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.

    sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58

    I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect money.

    The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.

    taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58

    Trump most certainly is not change for the better.

    How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...

    Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42

    Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.

    DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34

    Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?

    Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down authoritarian mindset any more clearer?

    The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.

    I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be the year an Independent runs and wins.

    danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32

    I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable, yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue - and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics, and he knew what was required to get to the White House.

    PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14

    Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be idiots to nominate her.

    PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12

    Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.

    PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09

    Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.

    PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07

    Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.

    Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07

    His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented. Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when you can get off your ass and get it yourself?

    8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06

    What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general.

    MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05

    I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them.

    The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent, albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.

    [May 06, 2016] The claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny

    Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt to white wash the crime.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
    "... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
    "... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
    "... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
    "... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
    "... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
    "... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
    "... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

    Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.

    You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    [May 05, 2016] Nuland Tells Cyprus To Cut Russian Ties – Pressures Anastasiades To Accept Nato Plan For Turkish Troops In Cyprus

    Notable quotes:
    "... After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed. ..."
    "... Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around. ..."
    "... That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump? ..."
    "... I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be. ..."
    "... Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine. ..."
    "... Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits. ..."
    May 4, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We were one of the few sites to follow the brutal handling of the Cyprus banking system when one of its major banks got wobbly in 2013. Cyprus was demonized as a money laundering center , when its main sin was that it served as a conduit for inbound investment into Russia, including investment by large, well-recognized companies. The reason for structuring investments via entities in Cyprus was that that enabled them to be subject to British law, which investors greatly preferred to relying on Russian law and courts. Cyprus thus has a significant amount of its economy dependent on lawyers and bankers to structure these deals. The ECB lowered the boom and forced bail-ins, which were more severe than they needed to be by virtue of one of the major banks being restructured in a way that led to a significant subsidy to a Greek bank that bought some of its operations. In other words, while something may well have needed to be done with the Cyprus banks, the brutality of the operation was driven by geopolitics, not the professed reasons.

    The geopolitical angle of the West's meddling in Cyprus a bit more obvious in this John Helmer sighting.

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    The US is intensifying the pressure on Cyprus to accept a secret NATO plan to keep Turkish forces on the island.

    Victoria Nuland, the State Department official in charge of regime change in Russia and Ukraine, met for talks last week with the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, and with Turkish Cypriot figures. The State Department and US Embassy in Nicosia have kept silent on what was said. A well-informed Cypriot source reports Nuland "was in Cyprus to pre-empt any likelihood of future deepening in relations with Russia. Anastasiades may not want to, but he may have no other option." A second Cypriot political source said: "[Nuland] will try to blackmail him. I'm not sure how he will react."

    lyman alpha blob, May 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Greece isn't happy about the Turks in Cyprus, period.

    I was in Greece about 25 years ago when poppy Bush was president and paid a visit. That was the first glimpse I had of US power first hand – there were hundreds of suits talking into their sleeves lining the major route through Athens taken by the Bush motorcade. The whole city was essentially shut down and I couldn't believe that the US could project that kind of power in a foreign country. Later while I was at the Thessalonike airport coincidentally at the same time Bush was there, our flight was delayed due to a bomb threat presumably directed at Bush. Never did find out if it was a real bomb or not.

    Don't remember the ostensible reason for the Bush visit to Greece but I do remember the Greeks wanting the question Bush about the Turks occupying Cyprus and if the US would help end it. I remember thinking Bush probably doesn't even know where Cyprus is but even if he did, the US wasn't interested and weren't going to do a damn thing about it.

    After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed.

    craazyboy, May 4, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around.

    ambrit, May 4, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Poor Cyprus. We might as well revive the Crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. Are there any Lusignans alive today?

    John Wright , May 4, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Here is a recent comment I made that includes Nuland and her immediate family.

    Note that the establishment's candidate HRC "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes"

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/open-thread-debacle-for-us-iraq-policy-as-protesters-seize-parliament-in-green-zone.html#comment-2589491

    DJG , May 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump?

    After the streaming of the video-assassination of Osama bin Laden of the last few days, and after this maneuver, which is assassination of a small and vulnerable state, I respect George Orwell even more as a voice of prophecy.

    apber , May 5, 2016 at 7:35 am

    With Nuland, the ultimate neocon, we get WWIII in a Clinton Presidency. The key to Trump will be his proposed cabinet, VP, advisors etc. If nary a dual citizen neocon or a Goldman Treasury Secretary, we may have a chance; otherwise Trump will be outed as just another globalist stooge.

    TheCatSaid , May 4, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Are the oil discoveries off of Cyprus (announced in 2014) be part of the geopolitics discussed here? Cyprus made an agreement with Greece & Egypt according to the Guardian .

    ltr , May 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be.

    RBHoughton , May 4, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Resuscitating the Turkish part of Cyprus may be a great money-maker for Ms Nuland's friends. You can wander though entire deserted towns and villages. Everyone's voted with their feet and land can be had at a fraction of its cost in the south. It used to have the added advantage of being immune to extradition requests (remember Polly Peck?) but I am unsure if that continues.

    This looks like another aspect of Erdogan's vice-like grip on the reproductive glands of the European Commission and ECB. It really is quite funny to see the two countries directing EU policy these days are USA and Turkey.

    Punxsutawney , May 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine.

    EoinW , May 5, 2016 at 8:47 am

    I have been thinking that the NeoCon response to a Trump Presidency will be assassination. Naturally an assassination blamed on some left wing fanatic – will the next Oswald please stand up! Could it be, however, that the NeoCons recognize their problem isn't Trump, it's the people supporting Trump and their anti-establishment views? In that case, the only way to whip them into line is falling back on the most tried and true form of of social conditioning: nationalism/patriotism. Perhaps it won't be a countdown to knock off Trump before January. Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits.

    I wonder if the NeoCons could be that clever. They have succeeded in running the most powerful country in the world for 15 years in spite of countless disasters. Maybe they are clever enough to achieve their next great misadventure, one ending in nuclear war.

    [May 01, 2016] Why I (Belatedly) Blew the Whistle on the SECs Failure to Properly Investigate Goldman Sachs

    Notable quotes:
    "... By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus ..."
    "... Pro Publica ..."
    "... Pro Publica's ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds. ..."
    "... The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons. ..."
    "... The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad. ..."
    "... This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him. ..."
    "... James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out. ..."
    "... Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back. ..."
    "... I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... (other whistleblowers) ..."
    "... the system in which they operated ..."
    "... (some employees) ..."
    "... 'investigating fraud' ..."
    April 24, 2016

    Yves here. Two things struck me about Jim Kidney's article below. One is that he still wants to think well of his former SEC colleagues. I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). Kidney does criticize corrosive practices, particularly the SEC stopping developing its own lawyers and becoming dependent on the revolving door, but his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems.

    Number two, and related, are the class assumptions at work. The SEC does not want to see securities professionals at anything other than bucket shops as bad people. At SEC conferences, agency officials are virtually apologetic and regularly say, "We know you are honest people who want to do the right thing." Please tell me where else in law enforcement is that the underlying belief.

    By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus

    The New Yorker and Pro Publica websites today posted an article by Pro Publica's Jesse Eisinger about the de minimis investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the conduct of Goldman Sachs in the sale of derivatives based on mortgage-backed securities during the run-up to the Great Recession of 2008. The details of the SEC's failure to aggressively pursue Goldman in the particular investigation, Abacus, and its refusal to investigate fully misconduct by Goldman and other "Too Big to Fail" banks, stands not only as a historic misstep by the SEC and its Division of Enforcement, but undermines the claim that the Obama Administration has been "tough on Wall Street." The Pro Publica version contains links to a few of the documents I provided.

    No one in authority who was involved in the Goldman investigation ever gave me an explanation for why the effort was so slight. Mr. Eisinger's article doesn't offer any explanation from the one investigation participant brave enough to comment. The details of the investigation into Abacus at my level as trial counsel, which I provided to Pro Publica earlier this year, compels the conclusion that the SEC, its chairman at the time, Mary Schapiro, and the leadership of the Division of Enforcement were more interested in a quick public relations hit than in pursuing a thorough investigation of Goldman, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan and other large Wall Street firms.

    Although the emails and documents I produced to Pro Publica stemming from my role as the designated (later replaced) trial attorney for the Division of Enforcement are excruciatingly boring to all but the most dedicated securities lawyer, even a lay person can observe that the Division of Enforcement was more anxious to publicize a quick lawsuit than to follow the trail of clues as far up the chain-of-command at Goldman as the evidence warranted. Serious consideration also never was given to fraud theories in any of the Big Bank cases stemming from the Great Recession that would better tell the story of how investors were defrauded and who was responsible, due either to dereliction or design.

    Instead, the SEC restricted its investigation to the narrowest theory of liability, had to be pressed (by me) to go even one short rung above the lowest level Goldman supervisor in its investigation (which took months to push through, though investigative subpoenas are frequently issued on far less in far smaller cases) and finally dropped other investigations of Goldman in return for a $550 million settlement announced July 15, 2010. To my knowledge (I retired in March 2014), the SEC never again pursued Goldman for its mortgage securities fraud or other major fraud. There is no evidence on the SEC website that it did so.

    Nearly six years later, long after the statute of limitations for securities fraud expired and individuals, pension funds and corporate entities are no longer able to bring private actions against the Big Banks, the Department of Justice announced another settlement with Goldman for its deceptive conduct in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. In this one, Goldman agreed to pay more than $5 billion "in connection with its sale of residential mortgage-backed securities."

    At a minimum, it can be said that the SEC left 90 percent of the money on the table at a time when a more aggressive investigation of the company, as well as others, could have counted for something by disclosing, in a detailed court complaint, Wall Street wrongs that might have helped policy makers better address the subject and allow damaged individuals and entities to bring their own lawsuits.

    It is very important to emphasize emphatically several points. First, I have zero evidence, and would be very surprised, if any of the individuals at the Division of Enforcement, including senior supervisors or the SEC chairman or associate commissioners, acted unlawfully or were motivated principally to protect Goldman and other big banks. All of these people appeared well-intentioned from their point of view, even they never really explained, to me, or to many others at the Commission, their motives in limiting investigations. The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was. Its range was clearly limited from the outset: we will sue the bank and not look hard for evidence of individual participation beyond the lowest levels.

    By the same token, it is unfair to assume as a fact that any of the individuals at Goldman not sued, or anyone at Paulson & Co., violated the securities laws, civilly or criminally. Like any citizen, they are entitled to a day in court. Absent such opportunity, they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Arguments in my internal correspondence that evidence was sufficient to sue should be viewed only as that - arguments.

    So my point in releasing these documents to Pro Publica is not to chastise or hold up to public criticism those involved at the SEC, Paulson & Co. or Goldman, though criticism of the process and of the underlying financial conduct certainly is inevitable. All of these institutions have substantial influence in the investment industry. Rather, it is to bring to light the actual conduct of one of several SEC investigations into Big Bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

    As I told Mr. Eisinger when I met him, I hoped he would go to the individuals in charge of the SEC investigation at the time and find out why the investigation was so limited. I have spent six years wondering what is the true answer to that question. Perhaps there were sound reasons, other than the urge to get out a quick press release, which led experienced criminal prosecutors with histories in Wall Street to smother a major investigation by limiting it to the lowest level employee possible, to express total resistance to even investigating further up the chain of command, and ignoring without serious explanation and analysis what I and others, including my own immediate supervisors, viewed as the more appropriate theory for civil prosecution. I hope there are such reasons. As a trial attorney at the SEC for over 20 years, I bled SEC blue. I believed that the agency usually tried to do the best it could, using analog era procedures and processes to combat fraud in a digital age. I am saddened to release this information. But the notion that "the Administration was tough on Wall Street" must be addressed by facts, not press releases and self-serving interviews, else the system's problems cannot be adequately addressed and repaired to deal with the next financial crisis.

    Not only is the issue of how the financial sector enforcement agencies handled the wrongs of the Great Recession an important political issue, but it is important to history. It is important that the facts not be shielded from the public so that we can all learn for the future. And it is a melancholy thought that, presented with the opportunity for a rigorous investigation and airing of facts in civil or criminal proceedings gone, history will be denied a fairer story of both the financial crisis itself and how the government responded.

    As many news organizations have noted , the taxpayer and Goldman shareholders will pay the combination of penalties and repayments in the DOJ settlement. No individual was named as liable in the civil settlement with Goldman nor in any of the other similar, and even larger, financial settlements entered into with the Department of Justice, all of which are vastly greater than what the SEC obtained in its "quick hit, one and done" enforcement actions. DOJ must be credited with what appears to have been a far more thorough investigation of wrongdoing than the SEC performed, but the public is properly mystified that no individuals were charged, criminally or civilly, although the DOJ press releases contains the usual caveat that "the investigation continues."

    The settlements with Goldman and other Big Banks were resolved under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which allows the Feds to ignore the normal five-year statute of limitations for fraud, but does not permit suit by private party victims. As has been the practice with DOJ when dealing with Wall Street, no criminal charge was brought. In fact, no complaint was filed in any of these cases. Instead, DOJ entered into contractual arrangements with the banks. Failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract would subject them to civil enforcement as a breach of contract matter, not a contempt charge in federal District Court.

    Contrary to claims by politicians, it is clear that the Obama Administration has not been hard-hitting on Wall Street fraudsters. The large fines obtained by the Department of Justice, while a short-term pinch, are simply a cost of doing business. Relying on fines to penalize rich Wall Street banks, which, after all, specialize in making money and do it well, if not always honestly, is like fining Campbell Soup in chicken broth. It costs something, but doesn't change anything in the way of operations or personnel.

    Despite billions in fines representing many more billions in fraud, the enforcement agencies of the United States have been unable to find anyone responsible criminally or civilly for this huge business misconduct other than a janitor or two at the lowest rung of the companies. Nor have they sought to impose systemic changes to these banks to prevent similar frauds from happening again.

    Yessir, according to the Obama administration, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and other institutions made their contributions to tearing down the economy, but no one was responsible. They are ghost companies. And nothing needs to be done to prevent such intent or dereliction in the future.

    Law enforcement by contract? Clearly, the banks made it a condition of settlement that no complaint, civil or criminal, be filed. That might gum up the works by requiring state regulators to take action under their own rules, or cause other collateral consequences.

    Ah, say the defenders of the status quo, don't forget about Dodd-Frank, the unwieldy legislation passed by feckless Democrats influenced by big money contributors and their own fear of appearing too aggressive (a particular Democratic Party contagion). Dodd-Frank was and is a virtual chum pool for Wall Street lawyers and lobbyists, leaving most of the substance to regulatory agencies such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, who for years have been significantly captured by those they are supposed to regulate. The private sector lawyers and lobbyists have open doors to these places to "help" write the rules and add complexity, which they later complain about in court, challenging those same rules as too complex.

    Dear citizen, just remember this: complexity favors fraud, and certainly favors Wall Street and corporate America. You can't understand the rules and neither can Congress or all but the most dedicated experts. That's a lot of room to disguise misdeeds. To take a current example, which came to my attention just before completing this post, Congress is trying to use sentencing reform, generally thought of as intending to remove inequities from the criminal justice system, to also make it even tougher to prosecute and punish white-collar crime. Is this why the Koch Brothers suddenly show such public attention to the poor and needy by favoring such legislation? See this discussion of adding the "mens rea" requirement to such legislation. Burying an important but legalistic issue in otherwise liberal leaning legislation is a current example of disguising lax enforcement of white-collar crime in a complicated package. As one Democratic congressman suggested, how can a liberal vote against sentencing reform? The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter.

    Not coincidentally, adding a requirement to the law that it is a defense to either the crime itself or to sentencing that "I didn't know my acts were against the law" is a get out of jail free card as the complexity of laws addressed to ever more sophisticated business misconduct grows. Wall Street clearly has shown no shame in using the defense that "no one knew". Can't blame them. It has worked so far. Maybe they don't even need new legislation.

    I was told repeatedly when I entered the Goldman investigation that synthetic CDOs were just too complex for me to understand. Of course, it appeared to be plain vanilla fraud selling a product designed to fail but nicely packaged for chumps to buy. Claims of complexity hide many easily understood sins.

    At least for the major sins, we don't need even more complex regulations. Instead, put leadership in place who will aggressively enforce the laws we have already. That would raise plenty of eyebrows and put some bums in prison, or at least make them pay civil and criminal penalties personally. As many have noted, prison or, at least, personal financial liability, beats corporate concessions every time and pays back in future reluctance to break the law. The country should try it sometime.

    So back to little me, a small and ineffective cog in the larger system. Why is this release of documents so long after the investigation?

    My friends know that I have been upset since 2010 about the way the SEC handled the Goldman case and, in my view (confirmed by other trial lawyers), that it became a template for other SEC civil suits against the Big Banks. In 2011 I wrote an anonymous letter to The New York Times complaining about the lack of investigative effort by the Division of Enforcement and the impact of the "revolving door" bringing Wall Street defense lawyers into the highest reaches of the SEC. This is a practice that Obama has continued at most departments and agencies having to do with the financial system, following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. The New York Times letter was based entirely on publicly available information.

    I was dismayed to not find any follow-up to my letter in The New York Times . I gave up trying to bring attention to the investigative lassitude of the agency. Interest appeared to be over.

    A year after I retired, I sent a copy of the letter to The Times , under a cover letter identifying myself. One of the addressees on the original letter called and told me the original letter never was received. The caller suggested that was because I misaddressed it to the old location of The New York Times . I felt foolish, of course, but I guess that in 2014, when the letter was finally received, The Times didn't see fit to follow-up the information even knowing its source. This was another indication to me that the time for debate over the law enforcement treatment of wrong doers on Wall Street had passed.

    Once, years earlier and only for a brief time, the SEC was an agency that was at least sometimes fearless of Wall Street institutions. In those days, the directors of the Division of Enforcement were home-grown, not imported from Wall Street law firms. After 1996, that ended. Every director since has been nurtured as a Wall Street defense lawyer. The decline in performance has followed an expected arc. No one has seemed bothered by this. It seems the phrase "lawyers represent client interests" is sufficient explanation to insulate this practice from critics. In this view (pushed by lawyers), lawyers are the only people in America who are not influenced by their work experience, including friendships and defense of client practices. They are SO exceptional! So give it up, Jim, I finally told myself. It's the nature of Washington to put foxes in hen houses and claim they are protecting the fowl.

    But in April 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his presidential candidacy, based principally on anger over how Wall Street has escaped being held seriously responsible for its misdeeds. If you credit Sanders with nothing else, praise him for not letting go of the notion of justice for those who suffered and those who caused pain and anger for millions. Yes, the banks are not solely responsible for the Great Recession, but they contributed more than their fair share and leveraged immensely the damage initially caused by others.

    Sanders was not treated seriously. The publications I read made it clear that Sanders was, like Donald Trump, a flash in the pan. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton would be nominated. Anger against Wall Street and inequality were issues, but not worthy vehicles for a political campaign. Nothing here. Move on.

    It turns out that the ravages caused by Wall Street are the gift that keeps on giving. As Sanders campaigned with far more success than predicted, and Secretary of State Clinton defended President Obama as "tough on Wall Street," it was evident that my small contribution to correcting the record might be timely.

    So here it is.

    Do I think Obama is responsible for the ineffective and embarrassing lay downs at the SEC and DOJ? Yes, I do. I have no idea if the President communicated to his law enforcement appointees that they should "go easy on Wall Street." Rarely is such overt instruction necessary in Washington. But it is not hard to believe that in some fashion he did send such signals, since he came into office with a mantra of letting bygones be bygones, including in the far more important arena of the false narratives for invading Iraq.

    In any event, the chairman of the SEC and the attorney general are appointed by the President. At a minimum, we can say with certainty that Obama was satisfied with their performance. It is difficult to conceive that, as a Harvard educated lawyer who also taught law at the University of Chicago, it never crossed his mind how massive civil or criminal misconduct could go on without the supervision or knowledge of at least mid-level executives. Certainly, the public criticism was brought to his attention. His response was to create a joint task force on the subject of fraud in general. Its main visible public function is to collect all the press releases on fraud prosecutions, including small-time fraud, on one website . It also offers advice to "elders" on how to avoid fraudulent scams. The pro forma mention of the task force in DOJ's announcement of the Goldman settlement signals that the Task Force doesn't do much. Again, law enforcement by press release.

    The alternative possibility, never mentioned because it is preposterous, is that big Wall Street firms so lack supervision of their lower level employees that fraud on a huge scale can be conducted without the knowledge of even mid-level executives. At the SEC, at least, such a conclusion should call for application of its "regulatory" function to impose supervisory conditions on the banks. No such action was ever undertaken. Instead, it was "pay up some money and nevermind."

    Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds.

    I believe that the American public is entitled to accurate information about how their government works, including the important regulatory agencies. One way to do this is to fully disclose how the sausage is made, especially when the process is defective. Self-promoting press releases swallowed by a fawning business press is not sufficient. I knew I would not disclose any non-public information about the Goldman investigation while the lawsuit against Fabrice Tourre was pending. He was the one guy at Goldman the SEC sued personally. In fact, I think he was the only guy employed by any of the big banks sued personally. (Another fellow who worked with the banks - not for the banks - was sued in another case. He was found not liable, with the jury asking how come higher-ups were not in the dock and urging the investigation to continue. It wasn't.) The Tourre case concluded a few years ago with a verdict against the defendant. All appeals are exhausted. The statute of limitations has expired for private actions. Disclosure of the information I had can do no harm to the public or to pending litigation.

    The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons.

    As final egotistical end note, I must say that, despite all of my personal reservations about his dedication to effective law enforcement in the financial sector, I voted for the President twice. I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. But I ask myself: Is this the best that two political parties given de facto monopoly over selection of presidential candidates can do?

    Whoever is nominated and elected, Republican or Democrat, I hope that he or she will recognize the need to end the practice of hiring Wall Street personnel to run our financial enforcement agencies. They should begin by looking to home-trained personnel to lead the major departments and agencies, such as Treasury, the SEC and the Department of Justice, including the chief of the Antitrust Division. These are the people who are responsible for these institutions on a daily basis and also understand the nature and importance of their mission. They have a career stake in doing an effective job. Outsiders are, in general, more interested in resume polishing for the next private job. Additionally, much great talent leaves these agencies for their own more lucrative private careers when they see their own chances for advancement blocked by outsiders or their energies trying to fairly but aggressively enforce the law sapped by timid leadership.

    One party has chastised our government on every occasion for nearly 40 years and shows no intention of reining in Big Business or Wall Street. Directly or by implication, these attacks tarnish government employees in general, making a public service career less attractive to our most talented citizens. The other party has been indifferent or ineffective in its defense of civil service and has addressed financial sector wrongs by adding to the complexity of the system rather than cutting through it. As a result, some of our businesses are above the law.

    Something has got to change. It will. The question is, will it be for the better?

    Gaylord , April 24, 2016 at 4:40 am

    The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad.

    James Levy , April 24, 2016 at 6:24 am

    When it's your career, you get sad.

    A little history: I was hired, first as an adjunct, then a tenure-track professor, by the interdisciplinary Freshman teaching unit at my old university. Two years before I would have come up for tenure (and gotten it) they axed the program and switched me, against its will, to the History Department. And they reset my tenure clock to zero. Long story short, they were never going to tenure me. So I slogged on and earned my pay and got my two kids through high school. By then, my wife wanted out of the suburbs and said she was leaving, preferably with me, but leaving. So we moved to the country. This cut me off from the academic life (and nice $72,000 a year paycheck) that I had struggled for years to enter and excel in.

    So what? So, It's gone. I'm cut off. My intended life's work is ruined. At 51 I'm an unemployed naval historian with two books and seven refereed journal articles and I can't get an interview for a full-time job at a community college. How painful is this? It's murder. Hurts all the time. No more exciting lectures to give. No more university library at my beck and call. No more access to journals. No more conferences. It's an occasional one-off course and driving a delivery van.

    This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 24, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Mr Levy, I am very sympathetic to your situation – long story short, I was in the forefront of the late 70s to the present, layoffs in various industries where I found myself game-fully employed. I too, no longer believe I will ever be employed full time at any job.

    But I argue that it is not that the gods do not favour us; it is that we are the outcome of bad gov't policies and unregulated (regulated for the consumer) businesses practices. Hence, my lack of sympathy or willingness to tolerate breast beating (see my April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am posting) by those who put us here.

    ahimsa , April 24, 2016 at 7:48 am

    @James Leavy

    Not sure I follow you?

    James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out.

    From Bloomberg: SEC Goldman Lawyer Says Agency Too Timid on Wall Street Misdeeds

    inode_buddha , April 24, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back.

    Are there any yacht clubs nearby you? There is like 4 of them within 10 minutes of me (I'm on the Great Lakes) You could teach sailing and rigging no doubt. Bonus: Union crane operators are required to know their rigging – they may need teachers too.

    Norb , April 24, 2016 at 10:54 am

    More than ever, I am convinced the capitalist system needs to be rejected as the means determining how goods and services are delivered. The injustice and inequality generated are too great. Finding a positive expressive outlet for this dissatisfaction will require leadership- and a new vision for the future.

    The amount of social damage being inflicted by the elite is almost beyond comprehension. Since they have successfully insulated themselves form the consequences of their actions, they remain aloof and uncaring for the plight of ordinary people, not to mention the health of the planet. This system will continue to cut more and more people off from the benefits of collective social action and effort. The work of the many, supporting the desires of the few cannot stand.

    We all have to decide the level of inequality we are willing to live with. How people answer this question will naturally sort them into common communities. Leave the isolated gated communities to the elite. Careerism, like capitalism, is a dead end if your position cannot be guaranteed. The amount of talent and passion for work wasted under the current system is another undercounted fact. Sustainability and democracy are not compatible with capitalism.

    Getting mad is only the beginning. The anger must be directed in some productive fashion. Any resistance to the current order must have broad social support and that support only has strength if self-reliant. Building these self-reliant structures is what the future will hold. If the plutocrats can build a world for themselves, why can't the common man. It only takes work,discipline, and control over the means of production.

    Workers without power, influence, and the means to obtain life necessities are slaves. Is the best the human mind can conceive a life of benevolent serfdom?

    By the way, I believe I would enjoy sitting in on one of your lectures. I'm sure I would learn much- and be a better man for it.

    local to oakland , April 24, 2016 at 11:43 am

    @James Levy … sorry to hear. I know a few who have been chewed up by the academic meat grinder. I hope you can find a productive outlet for your scholarship. Exile is hard.

    I have been helped by the stoics, and Dante.

    Ben , April 24, 2016 at 10:01 am

    And now GS is caught in the middle of 1MDB bond issue scandal using fraudulent and information.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am

    "The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter."

    That's it! Stop right there! I will not let you (speaking to the author) BS your guilty conscience over my internet link. The average voter clearly knows they are getting screwed, that Wall Street and the voter's own bank is ripping the voter off, and most clearly, that the justice department, from state and local to federal, is enabling this injustice.

    You sir, are swimming with sharks. Your morality is "is it legal?", your justification is "for the shareholder". Therefore, you refuse to see the mendacity and instead excuse it for ignorance.

    JACK SKWAT , April 24, 2016 at 7:39 am

    I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing).

    Wow, that's a mouthful – and it's only one sentence. Whilst I love your pieces, I've noticed that many of the articles – at least the run up summation to the articles – tend to be written in a stream-of-consciousness style that, frankly, is hard to digest. This seems to be the case more now than in the past. I don't know if you're harried or on an impossible schedule, but could you please make your syntax easier to read? Thanks from a long-time reader and donator.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Because it's a Sunday and I have time to goof off, one potential revision - b/c I believe what Mr Kidney has to say is important enough for me to spend a few minutes on one potential suggestion. I've amended and added what I hope are accurate meanings:

    ----
    Focusing on these as the key subject /verb pairs:
    I know (other whistleblowers)
    (other whistleblowers) [lost their jobs]
    (other whistleblowers) [blamed themselves – initially]

    (other whistleblowers) [finally… accept]
    the system in which they operated … [was corrupt]
    … even if… (some employees) tried to [be competent]

    (It - there's a problem with 'it' as the subject, because we are unclear what 'it' refers back to - I'll interpret 'it' as 'investigating fraud' ) was bound to…
    -------------–

    I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters. They wound up losing their jobs.
    Initially, they blamed themselves, until they finally came to accept that the system in which they operated was so fundamentally corrupt that they could not retain a sense of their own integrity while working within the organization.

    Despite the fact that some people really were trying to do the right thing, for reasons that I will explain, investigating fraud was bound to go in one of only three directions:
    1. fraud would not be investigated at all,
    2. fraud investigation would serve the agency's need for better public relations - in other words, the appearance of fraud investigation would be allowed to proceed, but only if it was merely cosmetic (or served some larger political purpose), or else
    3. fraud investigation became temporarily elevated, but only because the organization* was suddenly in trouble – and consequently, needed to burnish its credibility by actually investigating fraud.

    (Although 3 is a variant of 2, in the third option, credible fraud investigation could occur if, and only if, political necessity enabled competent SEC employees to actually investigate fraud in order to maintain the reputation of the SEC).

    [NOTE: *It's not entirely clear here whether 'the organization' is the target business, or whether it is the SEC (which would need to burnish it's cred in the face of bad publicity)]
    ------------

    Not sure how close I came to the author's intended meanings, but I thought that I'd give it a shot.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 24, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    The sentence parses correctly even though it is long. Stream of consciousness often does not parse correctly, plus another characteristic is the jumbling of ideas or observations. The point is to try to recreate the internal state of the character.

    For instance, from David Lodge's novel "The British Museum Is Falling Down":

    It partook, he thought, shifting his weight in the saddle, of metempsychosis, the way his humble life fell into moulds prepared by literature. Or was it, he wondered, picking his nose, the result of closely studying the sentence structure of the English novelists? One had resigned oneself to having no private language any more, but one had clung wistfully to the illusion of a personal property of events. A find and fruitless illusion, it seemed, for here, inevitably came the limousine, with its Very Important Personage, or Personages, dimly visible in the interior. The policeman saluted, and the crowd pressed forward, murmuring 'Philip', 'Tony', 'Margaret', 'Prince Andrew'.

    More generally:

    The Stream of Consciousness style of writing is marked by the sudden rise of thoughts and lack of punctuations.

    The sentence may be longer than you like but this is not stream of consciousness. A clear logical structure ("first, second, third") is the antithesis of stream of consciousness.

    fiscalliberal , April 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    I fail to see why fraud is not prosecuted. We can get cute with fancy words but fraud is clear and simple. Also – Enron results in SARBOX which seems to be clearly ignored. Yves – do we know of any SARBOX prosecutions? Clinton started deregulation, Bush implemented deregulation and Obama maintains it. No wonder the kids are mad. The financial industry makes the Koch brothers look like pikers.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 24, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    There is actually a high legal bar to prosecuting fraud.

    I have written at length re Sarbox and the answer is no. And under Sarbox, you don't need to prosecute, you can start with a civil case and flip it to criminal if you get strong enough evidence in discovery. There was only one case (IIRC, with Angelo Mozilo) where the SEC filed Sarbox claims, one in which it also filed securities law claims. The judge threw out the Sarbox claims with no explanation. I assume it was because the judge regarded that as doubling up: you can do Sarbox or securities law (the claims to have some similarity) but not both. But the SEC as it so often does seems to have lost its nerve after that one.

    afisher , April 24, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Interestingly, the SEC has been warned about more of the same type of fraud: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf

    I don't know if an election would have consequences and if a new administration headed by Sanders would make it the SEC more responsible to the taxpayers and not the investors / banks.

    It only took a decade for Markopolos to have his ponzi scheme information read by SEC.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 9:48 am

    I want to like this guy, I really do. But then he goes and says stuff like this:

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.

    So he doesn't understand how the revolving door works…or he does but he's being purposefully obtuse about it. Sacrifice my ass! Gentleman my heiny! And claiming that there's no proof of criminality when, as is pointed out above, Sarbanes-Oxley was obviously violated isn't helping things either.

    Listen dude, pick a side. It's either the American people or Wall Street crooks and their abettors in government. You don't get to have it both ways. This kind of minimization and wishy-washyness is only helping the crooks. More disappointing than I exepected.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 9:59 am

    I mean, at least he lays blame at Obama's feet, and calls the fraud what it is: fraud. Good on him!

    …But then he pulls out the "vote for Dems no matter what they do!" line and I just shake my head….

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    diptherio……. excuse me for a momen--BARFFFF!!!!!!-- Whew ……… that felt better !! ……….

    yes …I agree….these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public rage !!!

    bu…bu…but Just Us !!

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public rage !!!

    I don't actually agree. I think the guy feels a little guilty for not doing more, now he's trying to salve his conscience. Still, he can't quite bring himself to admit that the people he was working for may well have been criminals. They were just so nice!

    Self-reflection is not comfortable, and most people don't have much tolerance for it. I think this guy's legitimately trying to do the right thing (not cover up for criminality) it's just that it's really psychologically difficult to admit certain aspects of reality. It's not like he's the only one.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people ( people in high finance, their underlings, traders, hedge funders, and other assorted enablers of massive fraud upon the general public, are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany! I'm not buying whatever faux sincerity they're trying to project…….

    They've screwed millions of trusting people with their fraudulent grifting!

    reslez , April 24, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    > I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people […], are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany!

    Especially when it comes after a fat retirement and a lengthy career of going along. I have much more respect for people who really did put their daily bread on the line, and there are plenty of those people, a lot of whom Obama sent to jail. So, yeah, great, you finally told the truth… but where were you when the country needed you to speak out?

    perpetualWAR , April 24, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How about where the guy said "until proven guilty, they are innocent." Hahahahahahaha

    Crooks, the lot of them.

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    Couldn't we use civil forfeiture to go after them regardless of whether we can prove any actual crime? What's good for the average citizen is surely good for the elite banker…

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    …but you just might need some of those 'Yehadis' to back you up ;-)

    reslez , April 24, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    It's a good thing they're gentlemen. I don't know if I could handle all the looting and self-dealing if it came from common ruffians. Truly we are fortunate to be in such hands, my fellow countrymen!

    ChrisPacific , April 26, 2016 at 12:36 am

    Yes, I had trouble getting past that line as well. Either he is being ironic or he has a massive blind spot on that point.

    Lars Jorgensen , April 24, 2016 at 10:00 am

    According to Bill Black in a ted talk 2014. After the Savings and loans debacle, where the regulators went after the worst of the worst criminals, they made 30.000 criminal referrals and 1000 procecutions with a 90% succes rate.

    Now after the 2008 crisis, which was 70 times bigger causing 10 million job losses and costing 11 trillion dolllars, the Obama administration has not made one single criminal referral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGE

    Today I fell over some information about the IMF, that the organization is exempt from legal prosecutions and taxes. Can this be true?

    From the article: "The employees who bare the IMF badge are pretty much exempt from all forms of government intervention. And, according to LisaHavenNews, the IMF "law book," the Articles of Agreement lists the reasons and requirements for exclusion from government mandate."

    http://www.truthandaction.org/revealed-imf-granted-complete-immunity-form-legal-prosecution-taxation/

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    …..criminals are, as criminals do, as criminals take…..

    Steve in Dallas , April 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Thank you, I was hoping someone would mention Bill Black.

    I'm a software/hardware product/business development engineer. In 2008, after 20 years of reading the WSJ and stunned by the sellout to Murdoch, I went to the internet independent media (IM) to follow the 'economic crisis'. Within a few months it was clear to me 1) I had learned nothing of substance reading the WSJ, 2) the U.S. MSM, education system, and government are thoroughly captured/corrupt.

    Being a 'reader' (note: I don't know anyone who reads non-fiction) for me this 'worldview transition' was quite natural, nothing really surprised me, and it was a big relief to discover such good information/analysis so easily available on the internet. However, eight years later, I have yet to meet a single person who has rejected the MSM or tuned in to what's happening, via the IM or otherwise. In fact, after leaving the university in 1990, I have yet to meet a single person with any basic understanding of (or the slightest interest in, or concern about) the extreme institutional criminality of the the Savings & Loan Crisis, Asian Economic Crisis, Technology Bubble, the 2008 crisis, or the many economic/military wars-of-aggression methodically destroying one government/economy/country after another.

    To me, nothing made the global/economic/organized/mafia criminality more clear than the 2008/2009 articles by Bill Black. Back then I again foolishly assumed people would rally behind Dr. Black to reestablish basic law enforcement against yet another obvious largest-ever "epidemic" of organized crime. Looking back, the highly organized (and very successful) criminality of the Paulson/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke/etc. cabal was truly an amazing operation to behold. Perhaps the most shocking news came in 2010 when numerous studies confirmed that the top 7% of Americans had already "profited" from the economic crisis, that the criminally organized upper class had not only increased their net wealth but, more importantly, had increased their rate of wealth accumulation relative to the bottom 93%. Still, to me, infinitely more amazing, the bottom 93% didn't, and still don't, seem to care, or if they do, they've done absolutely nothing to even start to fight back.

    Today, when reading these articles, I'm astounded how completely meek and 'unorganized' the bottom 93% are compared to the extremely vicious and organized top 7%. Year after year the wealthy elite, who's core organizing philosophy is "take or be taken, kill or be killed", increasingly wallow in dangerously high and unprecedented levels of wealth accumulated by blatant/purposeful/methodical/criminal/vicious looting while their victims, the bottom 93% 'working class', do absolutely nothing (what are they doing?…. other than playing with their phone-toys, facebook, video games, movies?). At this point, the main (only?) reason I continue to 'read' is to perhaps someday 'behold' the working class 93% attempting to educate themselves and consequently 'organize' to defend themselves.

    lightningclap , April 24, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    +1

    diptherio , April 24, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Dude, you need to move to Austin, stat!

    lyman alpha blob , April 24, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I sympathize with Mr. Kidney and applaud him for doing what he can to try to rectify this abhorrent situation. I also applaud him for placing the blame squarely on Obama and his reasons for doing so are solid.

    What I find much harder to understand is why he would vote for Obama even in 2012 after it became apparent that Obama was ultimately responsible for stonewalling his investigation, and his complete willingness to vote for the corrupt Democrat party no matter what going forward.

    As long as enough people continue to have that attitude things will never change until the whole system comes crashing down. I'd much rather see an FDR-type overhaul of the system rather than a complete collapse as I'm rather fond of civilization. But I've come to expect the latter rather than the former so I'll be reading my weekly Archdruid report for the foreseeable future.

    Carolinian , April 24, 2016 at 10:25 am

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.

    Yes poor babies for that "significant personal sacrifice" that resulted in "even more lucrative" private employment. The author explains the problem then scratches his head over what it might be.

    In a rational world there would be a strict separation between the regulated and the regulators. The government would hire professional experts at decent salaries and they never ever would be allowed to then move on to jobs with the regulated. Clearly the assumption underlying our current–irrational–system is that these high status technocrats are "gentlemen" with a code of honor. Welcome to the 19th century. Those long ago plutocrats in their stately English mansions were all gentlemen and therefore entitled to their privileges by their superior breeding. They were the better sort.

    Meanwhile for lesser mortals it seems totally unsurprising when laws are ignored because you hire your police from the ranks of the criminal gangs. No head scratching needed.

    Alex morfesis , April 24, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Reid Muoio (boss of kidney @ $EC) has a brother at a major tall bldg law firm whose job is to help fortune 500 companies deal with D & O insurance issues…so when in the article Muoio says "He" did not go thru the revolving door…it was fraud by omission…his brother sits on the opposite side of these private settlement agreements…

    so is Kidney unaware…leaving us to maybe accept he was never much of an investigator…or just forgot to point it out for us…

    The world is full of govt types who tell us TINA…

    The wealthy Elliott Spitzer told us he would have loved to help "the little people" but the OCC and then scotus with waters v wachovia…except scotus ruled only direct subsidiaries get protection and the OCC specifically said the trustee operations of OCC regulated entities are also not covered/protected…

    A really big shoe
    as Ed used to remind us….

    susan the other , April 24, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    Does anyone else think this was insider demolition – not just the failure to prosecute, but the whole financial implosion in the first place? Who writes up nothing but "shitty deals" – all the while saying to each other: IBGYBG and survives to slink away? They must have had a heads up that the financial system as we had known it in the 20th c. was done. They had a heads up and then they got free passes. My only question is, Wasn't there a better way to bring down the system, an honest way that protected us all? By the end of the cold war money itself had become an inconvenience because of diminishing returns. And now the stuff is just plain dangerous because everyone who got screwed (99%) wants their fair share still. It is paralyzing our thinking. Obama maintains he personally "prevented another depression". I honestly think he might be insane. What we need is a recognition that the old system was completely irrational and it isn't coming back. And most of us are SOL. Somebody is going to figure out how to maintain both the value and usefulness of money very soon, because we've got work to do.

    cnchal , April 24, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    The GFC was the first great financial crime of this millenium, and Goldman Sachs was at the epicenter. A heist of gargantuan proportions, they didn't even need a safecracker after Bernanke spun the dials and opened the door wide.

    Imagine if the FBI and the Mafia exchanged their top leaders every few months. That's what we have here with the SEC and Wall Street.

    Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
    We can add to that. The business of the SEC is to provide cover.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    It's all about 'their protection'….not ours!

    and Obama………..

    He's a f#cking psychopathic peacock!

    KYrocky , April 24, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    In Yves intro she shares her views, first, that Kidney still wants to think well of his former SEC colleagues and his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems, and second, that there are class assumptions at work.

    The first is obvious, as the SEC is an utter failure in its responsibility to investigate and prosecute financial criminals. While Mr. Kidney devotes a fair amount of his passages pondering how it can be that no individuals within these financial institutions bear personal responsibility, Mr. Kidney fails to see the SEC through that same lens. To say Kidney's criticism of his coworkers is muted is an understatement. The individuals at the SEC are corrupt. The individuals at the Justice Department are corrupt. Probably all nice people: husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends, etc. Just like those folks at the financial institutions. Mr. Kidney cuts them slack because of his personal relationships with them. Mr. Kidney chooses to give them the benefit of doubt when the totality of their professional performance at the SEC make clear this cannot be true.

    With respect to class assumptions at work, Yves illustrates with the deference shown by SEC officials and investigators toward these financial criminals and their presumption that these individuals are honest. Mr. Kidney does share some of his disappointment in President Obama and Obama's administration but fails to properly connect the dots. In short, the lack of financial crime prosecutions is the result of a deliberate, planned and orchestrated effort.

    Mr. Kindney's investigations were prevented in going forward by his superiors. He was never given an explanation for this despite his asking. But Kidney believes his superiors are all good people.

    No, they are not. They are compromised people who have placed their career employment above their sworn duty. The fact that their bosses have done the same, as have those in the Justice Department as well as President Obama, should not diminish this fact. The phrase "class assumptions" is too euphemistic when describing a system where there is no justice for the victims of financial crimes, a system where the Justice Department and Administration coordinate to shield financial criminals based on where they work.

    This is America. In today's America the fact is certain individuals are above the law because our elected officials at all levels accept that this is okay. Victims of these individuals will be prevented access to their legal recourse, and that these criminals are protected from the highest level of our government down. This goes way, way beyond class assumptions.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , April 24, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Yves has written extensively about how corporate interests have funded academic sinecures, as well as continuing legal education seminars attended by attorneys and judges. This is part of the fallout; if you want more, check out her section of ECONned where she explains how legal thinking was perverted by business interests.

    flora , April 24, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Thanks for this post. Glad to see the SEC story is still alive. I'm sure the SEC and Obama would prefer it quietly go away.

    dk , April 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    As someone who has fallen on their sword more than once (and again recently), I just want to say that "placed their career employment above their sworn duty" is accurate but also oversimplifies the situation.

    People with families tell themselves that they balance performance of most (some?) of those duties, while shirking the balance in order to protect their families (a "good" (as in, expensive) college for the kids)… this actually comes down to sustaining their social status, in a culture (political as well as corporate) where loyalty is valued equal to and above performance, and honorable action is diminished, trivialized, even ridiculed; and not just within the context of the financial industry.

    This is not at all a defense of the choice, but the choice is made in a very class-stratified social context, and arises in that general context. People take out loans to buy cars and houses, they squirrel earnings away into investments (to avoid taxes) which they are reluctant to draw from… they feel less ready to abandon their addictive income streams for honor, and fudge their responsibilities. It's not isolated to regulators, or government, or even finance. It occurs so constantly and on so many fronts that addressing specific cases doesn't make a dent in the compromise of the entire culture. And that compromise is fueled and maintained by a very twisted set of ideas about money, and career, and social status (not to mention compromises in journalism, education, science, you name it).

    Synoia , April 24, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    I read Mr kidney as being very sarcastic. I could not write this with a serious sarcastic (Lawsuit Avoiding) view:

    The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)

    taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice

    Oh really? Must have hurt. And from a legal point of view does not appear libelous.

    polecat , April 24, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    Yeah…stubbed toes only…….

    [Apr 23, 2016] Recolonisation Timor, Kosovo, Iraq, ... by Paul Treanor

    Notable quotes:
    "... A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone. ..."
    "... Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper. ..."
    "... The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns. ..."
    January 16, 2007 | inter.nl.net

    The UN protectorate in Timor was the first full recolonisation of former colonial territory by western powers. 25 years ago that would have been unthinkable. Ironically, the UN in 1990 declared the 'International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism' - yet the decade ended with 'white rule' restored in Timor. In 2002 it became nominally independent, although still 100% dependent on international aid, and in 2006 Australian troops again took control of security. Kosovo is still a protectorate, although now with an elected parliament, and a new protectorate has been created in western Macedonia. All these recolonisations were UN-sponsored, and that might yet happen in Iraq. Haďti also got a new American-appointed and UN-sanctioned government in 2004. With much less media attention, and without UN authorisation, Australia imposed a mandate on the Solomon Islands in 2003. Last changes 16 January 2007.


    The global context

    Why is there now a trend to recolonisation, after a historically unique decolonisation in the 1950's and 1960's? Developments in the last 15 years have reversed western attitudes to colonisation, well before the September 11 attacks in 2001. The most important is the strong feeling of cultural superiority in the west, and the belief that liberal values are universal. Universality was always inherent in liberalism, and to a lesser extent in 'democracy' as an ideology. The long-term global expansion of liberal democracy was inevitable, in the sense that any universal ideology will expand spatially, so long as there is no specific opposition to it. In long-term historical perspective, recolonisation is one form that this expansion can take. However, it remains ideologically driven - 'crusade' is a more accurate term than 'imperialism'. Tony Blair's July 2003 speech to the US Congress was a good example of the attitude of universal superiority:

    Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere... (APPLAUSE)... Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
    The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty....(APPLAUSE)... We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.
    Address by Tony Blair to a joint meeting of Congress, 17 July 2003.

    In a negative sense, the reversal of the de-colonisation of the 1950's and 1960's is facilitated by the renewed western image of non-western countries as 'barbarian', a sea of atrocities. In turn that has facilitated the abandonment of sovereignty doctrines - states can be written off as 'failed states' or rogue states' and invasion is then considered acceptable. In international law and geopolitics, this led to the acceptance of interventionist doctrines by the UN, which previously emphasised the doctrine of sovereignty. Interventionist international military strategy and tactics have been created, to replace the traditional ceasefire-line presence of UN troops.

    Inside the western countries (the potential and actual recolonisers) intervention lobbies have emerged, typically NGO's with good access to the media. Their have origins in the peace movement and Third-World movements, which have sometimes turned full circle from the 'anti-imperialism' of 30 years ago. As a political force for intervention, these lobbies have converged with the traditional foreign-policy elites in western countries. This convergence was symbolised by the appointment of Médecins sans Frontičres founder Bernard Kouchner as UN governor of Kosovo. Within the target states, the potential colonies, a western-funded and usually English-speaking NGO elite has emerged, the so-called 'democratic forces'. These are the kind of people who appear on CNN after a western intervention, to express their gratitude, in excellent English.

    In contrast to earlier colonial practice, recolonisation is nominally international or multi-state - traditional colonies had one colonial power only. In practice a tendency already apparent in the League of Nations mandates is repeated: the nearest western power plays a dominant role (in Timor, that was Australia).

    The definition of colonialism

    There is a strong visual image of colonialism (often from historical films), but it is surprisingly difficult to define it. In Europe secessionist movements often claim that their country was "colonised". But is Scotland really a 'colony' of England? Was Slovakia really 'colonised' by the Czech-dominated government of Czechoslovakia?

    I think a colonial relationship is defined by two things:

    Colonial territories are sharply distinct from the nation state, because they reject the classic nationalist principle that ethnic group, citizenship, state power, and state boundaries, should all coincide.

    It is this fundamental colonial relationship which was so clearly visible in Timor during the Australian occupation. White Australian troops patrolled the streets of Dili, but the inhabitants of Timor were not allowed to send troops to patrol the streets of Canberra, and search white Australians for weapons. Timorese can not vote in Australian elections, or sit in the Australian parliament, or even permanently reside in Australia - but Australian electors took decisions affecting Timor, and will do that again after the re-intervention in 2006. There is an asymmetric exercise of power in such protectorates, and the asymmetry is ethnic.

    On this definition of colonialism, the French overseas departments (DOM) are no longer colonies. Their inhabitants now have French passports and full citizenship: they vote in French national elections, receive the same social security payments as in France, and are free to travel to France at any time. When the territories were true colonies, only Europeans and a tiny 'native elite' had such rights. No DOM status, or anything like it, is planned for Iraq. (Think of how Tony Blair would react, to the idea of paying British benefits to the Iraqi unemployed).

    The most comprehensive definition of colonialism I could find is from the Office of Tibet site: ironically this Tibetan government-in-exile implicitly promotes western intervention in Tibet. This is the summary from the Introduction, there is more detail in Chapter II: Doctrines on Colonialism

    Criteria of colonialism

    Establishment of Colonial Rule
    Colonial rule is established in one or more of the following three ways: military conquest and subsequent annexation; the conclusion of a treaty or contract; the creation of merchant enclaves followed by settlement.

    Colonialism always involves the migration of people from a metropolitan state to a satellite region, but the magnitude of settlement differs from case to case.

    Characteristics of Colonial Administration
    The original population of the colonised territory is not, or poorly, represented in the colonial government. The interests of the original inhabitants are largely determined by the metropolitan, colonial power.

    Colonial rule superimposes national borders. In most cases these borders do not correspond to the local community structure(s) or to the political history of the colonised territory. Often the territory in question had not been organized as a nation state before the advent of the colonial power.

    Economic development is planned and imposed by the colonial power and often benefits the metropolitan state at the expense of the satellite region. Resources located in the colony are transferred to or used for the benefit of the metropolitan state and for further processing and marketing by that state.

    Civilising mission: the colonial power undertakes to 'civilise' the original inhabitants of a colony. The underlying presumption is that the colonial power possesses a culture/civilisation which is superior in relation to the culture/civilisation of the colonised population(s). In addition, the colonial power often claims that the original population of the colonised territory is unable to rule itself for reasons of political immaturity or economic backwardness.

    Cultural exchange between settlers/representatives from the metropolitan state and the original inhabitants of the colony is asymmetrical. The latter adopt more aspects of the culture of the former than vice versa.

    Maintenance of Colonial Authority
    The reactions of colonial powers to colonial resistance of colonised peoples are based on strategies to eliminate dissent.

    The maintenance of colonial authority involves a permanent military presence, consisting of soldiers from the metropolitan state or local soldiers under the command of officers from the metropolitan state.

    The maintenance of authority is often strengthened by a policy of population transfer.

    Perceptions
    Colonised people(s) experience colonial rule as alien. Similarly, citizens from the metropolitan state continue to make a distinction between themselves and the original inhabitants of the colony.

    Outcome of the Colonisation Process
    Colonisation may result in one or more of the following situations: 1) decolonisation, 2) complete take-over of the colony by the metropolitan settlement community, 3) the continuation of colonial rule over a territory which retains most of its pre-colonial identity or 4) integration into the metropolitan state.

    None of the aforementioned criteria is essential in establishing that a certain situation can be described in terms of colonialism . A combination of a number of these criteria is sufficient for determining that a situation is at least de-facto colonial.

    The Tibet site has an obvious bias: it is trying to avoid the 'salt-water doctrine', which says colonies are separated from the coloniser, usually by sea. (Since Tibet borders on China, it can not be a Chinese colony under the 'salt-water' definition). This is also an issue in defining recolonisation: is Kosovo a 'colony' of Germany and Britain because they station troops there? I use the term recolonisation to apply to territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but not to interventions by European powers in Central and Eastern Europe. In historical perspective, European wars among European states are not unusual, but the high tide of European colonialism lasted at most 200 years.

    The recolonisation of Iraq

    The listed features of colonialism accurately described the American-led protectorate in Iraq. The implied scenario has however fallen victim to the insurgency, civil war, and disintegration - the unexpected outcome of the recolonisation attempt. The 'protectorate formerly ruled by Saddam' was established by a military conquest - in retrospect only a partial conquest. The first post-invasion public administration was provided by the 'Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance' (OHRA) - despite the name, a military organisation. An elite of 'internationals' was ready to descend on Iraq - as in Kosovo - but deteriorating security made that impossible. Like so-called 'neutral' aid workers, such 'internationals' are usually indirectly funded by western governments. Attacks on the UN and Red Cross offices were undoubtedly related to their true geopolitical status - administrators of an American-led occupation. Many aid organisations subsequently left.

    The original population of Iraq had no political representation in the interim administration. All real power rested with the US military, who command the other troop contingents. As their control eroded, no clear and/or legitimate government took its place. They are the nearest thing to 'rulers of Iraq', until they withdraw. The assemblies which drafted the Iraqi constitution were US-appointed, and all election candidates were US-approved. Decisions were indeed made in the interests of the western powers, until they lost control: 'economic development' meant that the single exportable resource of Iraq - oil - was indeed be transferred to the western states.

    'Civilising' the country, or 'democratising' it, as they now say, is no longer on the agenda in Iraq. Population transfers are: under US occupation, Sunni-Arab migrants to Kurdish northern Iraq fled south - several hundred thousand, on some estimates. Now, the rest of the population has started to flee the country. Some people in the US foreign policy establishment want Iraq restructured as an ethnic federation: an all-out civil war would suit their purposes. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was assembled from the components of former empires, and could face the same 'dismemberment by bloodbath'. Whatever the developments, most people in Iraq (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) experience the occupation administration as alien - and the citizens of the US and Britain will continue to see the entire Iraqi population as different, and generally inferior, to themselves.

    It is the differential exercise of power which makes the recolonisation immoral. As in Timor, there is no question of the Iraqi population being allowed any participation in the political life of their new rulers. Although their city might be occupied by British troops, and governed by a British administrator, they will get no vote in British elections. They will have no right to demonstrate in London, even if they could afford to travel there. The fate of Iraq was decided by a remote and contemptuous population, the western electorates. This is clearly unjust, and 'government with contempt' tends to create abuses and atrocities. Iraq proved to be no exception. Now it has ended with a civil war.

    The recolonisation certainly can not be justified on the grounds of 'democracy', Tony Blair was elected in Britain, and George Bush was elected (fairly or not) in the United States. Neither of them ever had any democratic mandate to govern Iraq, and no political process of any kind conferred their power there. They ruled Iraq purely by the exercise of military force, and where that force weakened, their authority disappeared. With respect to the Iraqi population, they are just as much a dictator as Saddam Hussein.

    The recolonisation ideology

    At its simplest, a protectorate in Iraq is simply 'white rule'. The whites have the military power, they rule the natives, the natives have nothing to say - it's as simple as that. Predictably, the natives rebelled. The worse the insurgency becomes, the more brutal the exercise of foreign power. Things will only get worse in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ethnic inequality is likely to be repeated in the coming years, as more countries are subjected to recolonisation. The core beliefs of the recolonisers include a belief in the absolute truth of their own values: they reject scepticism and relativism. They believe in the universality of these values, without geographic or ethnic limits. They have a crusader attitude, believing that there is a moral duty to bring these values to the whole world, by force if necessary. They see themselves as part of a morally superior movement (sometimes called 'global civil society' and they have a contempt for other values (cultural and moral). At heart, however, the recolonisation movement is a repeat of the racism, jingoism, and imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When it is challenged, it is likely to produce a repeat of the decolonisation wars of the 1950's and 1960's.

    British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight.
    The colonial precedent, Mark Curtis, The Guardian, October 26, 2004.

    A media stereotype of western intervention paved the way for the invasions of recent years. It too is a reworked version of colonial racist attitudes: the world outside the western democracies is presented as barbarian, and the 'native' population as either violent and oppressive (warlords, militiamen, torturers), or as victims (refugees, children, corpses at mass graves). The victims are depicted as passive, powerless, and incapable of independent action: a typical image is of 'native' women weeping at a grave. In contrast, 'white' soldiers and aid-workers are presented as forceful and active, capable of responding to the situation, as helpers (for instance bringing food). The 'native' population is not shown in active or helping roles, but as passive and grateful, usually in a childlike way (clapping, singing, dancing). A typical image is the native population cheering as 'white' troops enter a town. Western post-intervention reactions are in the form of measured statements (from leaders and spokesmen).

    I put the words "white" and "native" in quotation marks: many of these TV stereotypes emerged during Balkan intervention, where all the war parties were white Europeans. All these stereotypes were visible in western media reports from Iraq, although they were overshadowed by the battle reports - the intensity of fighting was much greater in Iraq.

    A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone.

    Closely related to these political campaign groups, are the thousands of NGO's concerned with the South, the possible targets of recolonisation. It is difficult to draw a clear line between the political action groups and the NGO's - membership and activities often overlap. Collectively they see themselves as a form of global movement, with some shared values: for this perception, terms like 'global civil society' are used. However, the reality is that most NGO's are from OECD member states. In fact, many of these 'non-governmental' organisations are indirectly funded by western governments.

    Intellectuals, especially academics, are also important in the recolonisation trend. Some are only concerned with a specific territory, some campaign occasionally for specific interventions. However the most influential are those intellectuals, who have directly attacked the concept of sovereignty. Some of these theorists, such as Richard Falk, have being doing that for decades: they now see their ideas adopted by the academic establishment.

    Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper.

    The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns.

    It is too early to conclude that these groups have learned their lesson from the events in Iraq. They may be politically embarrassed, but their underlying conviction of superiority will probably drive them to new intervention campaigns in the coming years, and ultimately that will result in new attempts at recolonisation.

    [Apr 23, 2016] My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheneys totalitarian approach to all issues of security

    Notable quotes:
    "... This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. ..."
    "... The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless. ..."
    "... The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing. ..."
    "... If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you. ..."
    www.quora.com

    This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. His incessant compromises with GOP on health-care during his first year or two left us with an ACA that is somewhat better than nothing but falls dramatically far short of what it should have been; and the compromises were just tricks, the GOP intended to stonewall it from the beginning.

    His FCC's actions on net neutrality were essential but don't outweigh his failings on liberty, privacy, and other issues. His failures to respond to the Bundy family's two armed insurrections are typical of his passive afraid-of-the-backlash approach to just about everything.

    His administration is complicity embedded with the Content Ownership industry to eliminate the fair-use exception to copyright law. The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless.

    Only reason I don't usually air these concerns publicly is the scandalous amount of racism and sheer hatred in the heart of the GOP's nut-job opposition.

    The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing.

    ... ... ... ...

    If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Why David Cameron Went Neocon by Freddy Gray

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
    February 22, 2016 |
    FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is 6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary, offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.

    The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that

    "Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then, as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."

    Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International Crisis Group concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"

    Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment, and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy. This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.

    Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's office issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS, there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists. Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum, writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war."

    Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."

    [Apr 02, 2016] Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. 

    www.zerohedge.com

    PoasterToaster Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:43 | 7389203

    You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. They use a variety of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every other bit transmitted on the internet and linking it to a database they have built that records your popular searches and clicks.

    This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty internet searches. A clean search would see actual societal interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the State narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence community".

    They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical) Big Data to create a precrime division. It's also nice to have dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and challenges the aristocracy.

    wee-weed up

    Yep, war has always been the best automatic "go to" solution to deflect attention away from elite politician's gross malfeasance.

    [Mar 13, 2016] Carson's Trump endorsement: have Republicans lost their soul?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Guardian

    macmarco , 2016-03-12 22:48:46
    Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.

    Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores, and despised by a majority of the population.

    kriss669 , 2016-03-12 21:51:54
    Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics," cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.

    Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.

    LauraFlorin , 2016-03-12 21:43:08
    Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
    Zev Love , 2016-03-12 20:47:01
    The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
    Aria Price mbidding , 2016-03-12 17:05:50
    He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders, then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically correct."
    mbidding Aria Price , 2016-03-12 16:44:37
    Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue), cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps to release the productive potential of all citizens.

    As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know, Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.

    Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans to address such.

    Aria Price cheesymoon , 2016-03-12 14:46:34
    I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC & despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
    curiouswes Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 12:08:44
    right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would call causing terrorism... subjective
    Barmaidfromhell , 2016-03-12 09:00:55
    Rascism from the guardian - well in pursuit of a Hillary victory why not?
    Only pasty white liberals have souls.
    What a lost ship you are.
    Beckow deavonlea , 2016-03-12 03:26:51

    "Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"

    A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.

    danubemonster , 2016-03-12 02:57:52
    The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
    OldRINO , 2016-03-12 02:03:08
    This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
    Budovski Ximples , 2016-03-12 00:36:21
    I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
    srgraham , 2016-03-12 00:21:36
    The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them. That's why the GOP is scared.
    And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
    Rowlocks talenttruth , 2016-03-12 00:03:20

    Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."

    I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the Guardian.

    Bob Hitchen brianboru1014 , 2016-03-11 22:56:33
    The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose. Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
    Hmeckardt , 2016-03-11 21:01:12
    A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
    Alan_Johnson , 2016-03-11 20:33:20
    This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I conclude the author is pro Trump!
    Beckow Brian Gilmer , 2016-03-11 20:30:00
    Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously ("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).

    But these two deserve a response:

    "He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
    "He suggested suppressing religious liberty"

    People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.

    I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked, for how long, what would be the appeal process.

    My point is that Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control. That would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how could anyone fall for it again?

    geot22 , 2016-03-11 20:29:20
    When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined, not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s, with their Southern strategy.

    But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?

    RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound sleep, ascension.

    PirrhoOfElis , 2016-03-11 20:10:05
    Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened' intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's developing preeminence.

    [Mar 13, 2016] Theres no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 13, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/12/five-foreign-policy-questions-us-election-candidates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
    "... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
    "... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
    "... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
    "... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
    "... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    jparmetler , 2016-03-13 08:44:03
    You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
    Robert Maxwell , 2016-03-13 02:59:28
    It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.

    My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing about it.

    The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the camera when answering questions of substance.

    The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom. After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.

    I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.

    BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!

    If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we get.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:34:11
    here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please. add some insight. at least a bit.
    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:20:33
    Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace.

    Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.

    michtom , 2016-03-12 20:10:53
    Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military Industrial Complex?

    "Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?

    All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"

    Powerspike michtom , 2016-03-12 22:29:01
    An excellent statement of reality - sometimes it needs saying.
    http://fff.org/2016/03/11/the-u-s-middle-east-killing-racket /
    normankirk , 2016-03-12 19:06:03
    Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.

    The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"

    Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.

    Powerspike lorimerhotshot , 2016-03-12 21:56:21
    Try this website
    http://www.antiwar.com /
    Featherstone1 , 2016-03-12 17:41:16
    Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention".

    Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza strip conflict.

    Michronics42 , 2016-03-12 17:34:44
    If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media, Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her disastrous decisions in Libya).

    Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused.

    But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements; rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics offers, both globally and domestically.

    And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.

    Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied a true forum for change.

    FraidyMan , 2016-03-12 16:46:27
    What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    Bogdanich , 2016-03-12 16:01:59
    Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she will increase the force structure and the involvement.
    no1ban , 2016-03-12 15:55:05
    This is the kind of informative and vital article I am buying the Guardian to read and which these days is all too rarely printed.
    Hanwell123 no1ban , 2016-03-12 16:49:52
    Try the Independent, it is much more forthcoming about foreign affairs and doesn't just parrot the stock Neo conservative stance.
    alberto grieve , 2016-03-12 15:20:07
    It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
    If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
    MrConservative2016 David Ellis , 2016-03-12 14:45:33
    Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
    knightpestle , 2016-03-12 14:26:03
    Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.

    During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.

    But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was currently urging us into another intervention.

    Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.

    The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and Barack Obama. Ye gods.

    Kevin P Brown MrConservative2016 , 2016-03-12 14:35:03
    "According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."

    You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.

    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 14:18:49

    Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.

    After reading " The Dron Papers " Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands of entirely innocent people.
    So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
    mothercourage , 2016-03-12 14:13:56
    Excellent article.
    Informative and quite rightly challenging.
    America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
    Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
    Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
    Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
    SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:10:37
    Hardly amazing. There's not one American in a thousand for whom these issues will determine their vote.
    jez37med SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:24:56
    quite right
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:55:54

    While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.

    This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
    The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that, but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:43:40

    yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized the military action like the constitution requires.

    Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's war adventures.

    It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally, but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.

    kattw Kevin P Brown , 2016-03-12 14:57:33
    'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the folks who DO approve anyways).

    "The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable. Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does, others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal delusion.

    As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene. Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.

    The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but, well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility. The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.

    [Mar 13, 2016] There's no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 12, 2016] Death of former Putin aide: conspiracy theories abound back home in Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
    The Guardian
    anders otterland toryrebel , 2016-03-12 04:48:31
    Putin ain't no saint, however, the clearly orchestrated demonizing of Putin in western news media alerts my sceptisism.
    GrazieMiele , 2016-03-12 02:23:18

    Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight

    Reporting social media rumour = journalism

    GrazieMiele MacFhlannchaidh , 2016-03-12 02:17:28
    RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with no investigative journalism involved.

    RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media, despite it being a war crime.

    TheLongMarcher Talgen , 2016-03-12 02:08:27
    That's REALLY NOTHING in comparison with BUSH FAMILY/BIN LADEN TERRORIST CLAN victims: African Embassies, 9-11, and way TOO MANY to name...
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 02:05:55
    "Putin, Lesin". To hell with them.

    You'll better say, what do you think about Hrivna and Ruble, my Kyivan friend.

    MacFhlannchaidh Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 01:52:48
    Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream corporate media.
    banthem Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 01:29:55
    No! It's Putin in your head, Bro.! Hey, Putler, get out!
    Are you still insisting that You are "A Western Folk" but not from the Kyiv Region?
    Aion30 Vadim Dmitriev , 2016-03-12 01:24:45
    Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Magnitsky.. are surely connected with trying to grab Russia [wealth] with help of America and Britain security services:
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-who-really-tried-to-blackmail-yeltsin-takeover-russia-nsa-cia-or-investment-bankers /
    For such a blatant unbelievable crime, every country would done the same.
    ytrewq BatigolStatue , 2016-03-12 00:40:23
    Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
    Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:39:15
    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
    24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole. Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
    26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
    27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
    33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes."
    34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
    35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
    36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan
    All had said to friends that they had seen too much.

    Jai R. Emmett Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:38:53
    Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with "justice" of this kind.
    Talgen Extracrispy , 2016-03-12 00:38:17
    That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?

    1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
    3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
    5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties to Whitewater.
    11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancČe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancČe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made advances.
    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving Clinton.
    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
    21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.

    Extracrispy Luther Rhein , 2016-03-12 00:36:14
    If Russians did it it means they are the only super power in the world and you all can get stuffed.

    Ahhh yes... another shinning example of Russian mental masturbation.

    Talgen , 2016-03-12 00:31:48

    On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information about the investigation with no results.

    This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..

    Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 2016-03-12 00:25:17
    So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...

    There is something rotten in the state of Denmark..
    and by Denmark I mean DC.

    ytrewq Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-12 00:06:27
    It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
    alexis2016 , 2016-03-12 00:05:32
    Several Western media reports speculating on the cause of Lesin's death, including one by the DailyMail tabloid, immediately surfaced.
    ytrewq , 2016-03-11 23:54:49
    Jacqueline von Hettlingen
    2:29 PM MST

    The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all the embassies not out in the sticks.

    Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.

    pacificed , 2016-03-11 23:47:39
    What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.

    Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools will lap it up.

    It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.

    Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.

    As for the actual case it appears that Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence & corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".

    Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.

    Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being corrected.

    Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.

    Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.

    But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal decline.

    Luther Rhein airman23 , 2016-03-11 23:41:47
    because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack Russia. the west is so desperate.
    Scipio1 HumanistLove , 2016-03-11 23:31:19
    This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.

    And those hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:

    Mossadegh in Iran
    Arbenz in Guatelema
    Allende in Chile
    Lamumba in the Congo
    Multiple attempts on Castro
    Noriega in Panama
    Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
    Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'

    All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded proxies.

    Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the temerity to call Russia a mafia state.

    Luther Rhein TwoFingeredSalute , 2016-03-11 23:27:43
    the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
    Jeff1000 , 2016-03-11 23:25:39
    What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or was beaten to death?

    Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being released?

    With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria, as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and propaganda is all they have left.

    Luther Rhein MMGALIAS , 2016-03-11 23:22:38
    the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
    Hank Rodgers , 2016-03-11 23:12:32
    This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S. government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S. citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
    Malkatrinho wightangler , 2016-03-11 23:04:43
    $28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions stashed away, if not more.

    Estimates of Blair's wealth range from Ł20m to Ł60m. Who knows with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth Ł5m, but I suspect the real figure is much higher.

    What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.

    BatigolStatue , 2016-03-11 22:59:55
    Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the propaganda is most definitely working.

    - Major Russian figure murdered.
    - Happens in the US, home of the CIA
    - US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
    - Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
    - Slow handclap

    [Mar 12, 2016] President Obama's Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see. ..."
    "... Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty. ..."
    "... "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening. ..."
    "... I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event. ..."
    "... The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.) ..."
    "... So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink. ..."
    "... Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible. ..."
    "... And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic. ..."
    "... According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. ..."
    "... Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. ..."
    "... Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors. ..."
    "... Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units. ..."
    "... That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries. ..."
    "... Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking. ..."
    "... Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on. ..."
    "... You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge. ..."
    "... Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue. ..."
    "... Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks. ..."
    "... Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. ..."
    The Atlantic

    Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults of superannuated Castro manqués. "When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship," Obama recalled. "And I had to sit there and listen to Ortega"-Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua-"make an hour-long rant against the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously-because it really wasn't a threat to us"-helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.

    The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.

    "It is," the president responded coolly. "This is what they're looking for."

    He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me, Putin is not particularly nasty.

    "The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks." Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. "He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important."

    Russia's invasion of Crimea in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama's critics as proof that the post-red-line world no longer fears America.

    So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. "The argument is made," I said, "that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He's too logical, he's too rational, he's too into retrenchment. I'm going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine."

    Obama didn't much like my line of inquiry. "Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I'm always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don't think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq." Obama was referring to Putin's 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine-to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia's sphere of influence.

    "Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there," he said. "He's done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on."

    Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

    "The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do," he said.

    I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

    "It's realistic," he said. "But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's always going to be some ambiguity." He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. "I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy."

    "The 'crazy Nixon' approach," I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you're capable of committing irrational acts.

    "But let's examine the Nixon theory," he said. "So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I'm going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?"

    But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova-another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn't it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?

    "There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that's how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not that important to us, they know that, and we know that," he said. "There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years."

    ... ... ...

    A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. "Unlike China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only vision but a generation to overcome," Obama said. "The path that Putin is taking is not going to help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military force to show greatness is strong, and that's what Putin's inclination is. So I don't underestimate the dangers there." Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the country, and the next president, absorbs: "You know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think, Eh, that's nonsense. But it's true. And by the way, it's the element of American power that the rest of the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there's always a sense on the part of other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated."

    TotoCatcher -> Whateveryousay

    Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see.

    Question -> TotoCatcher

    Establishment? I thought he was unqualified because he was a "junior Senator" and "community leader". Now he's establishment?

    So basically establishment has about as much meaning as "entitlement" - its definition varies entirely depending on who you're referencing?

    pp91303 -> Question

    Totocatcher is a leftist accusing Obama of being a wall street, "corporate lawyer". He wasn't. The right never said he was. So an ignorant leftist calls Obama a corporate crony and that is somehow an indictment of the right. Brilliant.

    Obama was a red diaper baby, who went to a racist and anti-American church in Chicago, who worked a few years for a scummy little law firm that represented leftist-subsidized-housing developers like Tony Rezco, and who previously worked as a community organizer.

    nubwaxer -> Whateveryousay

    mine's not a hate comment but the extreme right, all republicans it seems, think bush's preemptive or proactive militarized foreign policy is still the right approach. it's still the shoot, aim, oops quagmire approach and obama's careful and patient evolving approach drives them crazy.

    the problem seems to me our oversized military is so well trained and well armed with the newest gear, which of course keeps profits flowing to defense contractors, that since we have it we nee to use it constantly to keep its edge. president obama seems to have reluctantly accepted our endless war strategy, but to the great ire of the right has shifted away from a militarized foreign policy to a primarily diplomatic approach. i for one see great success in the iran nuclear deal and restoration of relations with cuba.

    of course there will be those whipped into mass hysteria and seething anger by the relentless right wing propaganda and i'll be gone before i have to read any of their comments.

    Tom Hoobler -> nubwaxer

    Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty.

    Oscarthe4th -> Tom Hoobler

    "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening.

    Oscarthe4th -> David Murphy

    Glad we agree on LBJ.

    I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event.

    The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.)

    Obama, like most other presidents in messy wars, has expanded the president's power, and I fully agree that he has gone beyond what is constitutional. For the most part, however, it has not been covert. That reduces some elements of the danger his acts pose, but not all.

    screendummie -> Kimo Krauthammer

    No, the Arab Spring happened after Obama was president. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011, first in Tunisia and then elsewhere throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The uprisings in Libya and Syria happened a couple years after Obama was president. Libya is a complete mess and a declared failed state because of Obama.

    Sarastro92 -> screendummie

    So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    Special operation troops are in Syria. This has been reported numerous times. There was even a Congressional grilling of a general on our troops training Syrian fighters with the revelation that a half billion was spent training of 3 or 4 Syrian fighters. The officer grilled was Centcom commander, General Lloyd Austin back last year. You're blatantly ignorant of what's going on in the world.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    I hope you don't really believe 50 U.S. troops are only in Syria. I bet it's far greater. You have to remember they get rotated out. More than 50 troops have been deployed to Syria if they're being rotated. The troops in Jordan are supporting the combat mission. How is that any different? I'm curious how those 50 troops in Syria are fed and supported. Do they bring it all in themselves, or are more U.S. troops crossing in and out of Syria on a daily basis? If you really believe there are 50 U.S. troops in Syria, then you're really kidding yourself.

    There are several thousand troops now in Iraq. Before it was just 300. No, I'm not buying the advisor claim one bit.

    Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible.

    Davis Pruett -> Sarastro92

    >>>And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic.

    More-or-less the general disposition reported by Goldberg - but minus a vast trove of key facts which he purposefully distorts and obscures.

    Sarastro92 -> David Murphy

    Bull. According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

    Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.

    The French and Brits are culpable. Putin has changed the whole dynamic leading to a ceasefire and the demise of ISIS in Syria. But the whole thing can blow up at anytime.

    Your problem is that you read the CNN- NY Times propaganda and think you know something.

    David Murphy -> screendummie

    Can't exclude Cameron and Sarkozy from guilt over Libya. They sent in some special forces, dropped a few bombs and then moved on to other things. The arab spring was a grass-roots attempt to bring about democracy, which failed sadly.

    elHombre -> Kimo Krauthammer

    Really? Libya, Syria and ISIS were "debacles" when Obama took office? Really?

    And 23 up votes? The revisionist rubes are out in force on this one.

    Kimo Krauthammer -> hyphenatedamerican

    Everywhere the US treads we leave chaos and increased radicalism. Time for the US to get out now and let Putin wipe put ALL the terrorist vermin, even those we have been backing.

    Davis Pruett -> hyphenatedamerican

    >>>Putin is not fighting terrorists, he is fighting for Assad. Not the same thing.

    Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors.

    Apparently, you missed the part where a few weeks ago Syria and Russia offered a ceasefire and complete amnesty to any "revolutionaries" who are not associated with Al Qaida or ISIS.

    Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units.

    That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries.

    So, long story short:

    You don't know what you're talking about. You are factually wrong, and should be ashamed for sounding off in public about something you have no knowledge of.

    azt24 -> Question

    By every objective measure, Iraq was in better shape in 2009 vs. 2016. There was no ISIS, no Christian or Yazidi genocide, no slave markets in 2009, and violence was a tiny fraction of what it is today. These are just facts.

    As for picking 2009 for a start date, the article is titled The Obama Doctrine. The subject is Obama, the topic is politics.

    David Murphy -> azt24

    Iraq's problem now are largely self-inflicted. The Shia majority decided to oppress the Sunni, and Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni. A simple resolution to ISIS in the ME would have been for the Iraq government to act as a national government being fair to all not a partisan Shia government. Iran has been active in Iraq since Bush's day. Obama could achieve little in that benighted country, which was in a far better state before Bush led the attack on it.

    elHombre -> nubwaxer

    Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism.

    Only Obamadupes can fail to appreciate the risks of Obama's one-sided, ego-assuaging Iran fiasco and Cuba-courting.

    Defense contractors employ people, but you probably believe we don't need the jobs.

    You are, indeed, an Obama nubwaxer.

    azt24 -> rswfire

    " I feel President Obama isn't someone who really seeks the spotlight"

    Surely you jest. No President has been more in love with the sound of own voice, or more given to "I-me-mine-I-me-mine" when talking. Because it's always about him. Like when he explained to Bibi Netanyahu that he understood the Middle East because he was raised by a single mom.

    If Obama has quieted down in recent years, I can only suppose that it must have become obvious even inside the WH bubble that it wasn't working -- people have completely tuned Obama out.

    TotoCatcher

    The Atlantic is removing comments from most of the articles. Why? I won't read here if they don't bring comments back.

    This story is booooring. So I don't have much to comment on it. Obama was just another Bush who was just another Clinton. NEXT!

    chris chuba

    This article clearly states that we DID start to arm and equip the rebels after 'several months' in 2011 via a CIA program. It is a myth that we did nothing in Syria.

    What ended up happening is exactly what Obama feared would happen. The farmers and doctors were supplanted by the foreign Jihadist groups that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring. This was inevitable and the only thing that could have prevented that was an actual invasion and occupation of Syria which I in no way, shape or form endorse.

    Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on.

    Hurrya -> EnderAK12

    Are we sure that there was ever a free Syrian army? The Free Syrian Army was a media concept and never had a significant presence on the ground.

    Thermite -> EnderAK12

    We were supporting the Free Syrian Army since 2011. Basically when it started.

    gtiger -> EnderAK12

    You talk about the FSA as it's a viable entity. At best it's a loose alliance of rebel groups of widely differing ideology. It's Libya part II.

    Fresh -> Guyzer

    American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on.

    You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge.

    Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican

    They called the Mujahadeen back then, and Carter then Reagan created them, armed them and trained them. Even a certain Bin Laden.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    I have already provided background information and proof he and his crew were trained in Scotland.

    I assumed this was well known in the US, I mean before you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    A lot of the other articles have been buried, but the BBC one is good, and if you give me a while I will dig out an SAS officer discussing this.

    The Afghan Mujahideen were deported from their southern Scottish, and northern English, training grounds after the Lockerbie bombing. Nobody suspects them of being the cause of that crash, the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK to date, but they were under the flight path and they were terrorists/freedom fighters training to down Soviet planes, so they were instantly deported to avoid media attention.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I'm claiming that the original fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorist Mujadeen recruited by the CIA by Carter included Bin Laden's bodyguards and other Saudis.

    I know that because I'm Scottish, they were trained in Scotland.

    Guerrillas who protect US terror attack suspect Osama bin Laden were trained in Scotland, it has been alleged.

    There used to be other more informative media links available, but it's more difficult for 'them' to 'retire' a widely linked BBC report.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I think that individual died before "Al Qaeda".

    Are you aware "Al Qaeda" is a name assigned by western security agencies, they just adopted the name after we named them that?

    This was written by the British foreign secretary at the time, Robin Cook, someone who had access to all the MI6 and NSA and CIA files:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
    Innes Mizner -> Fresh
    "American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger"

    I agree with your post but I'd roll it back 20 years. Kissinger extended the Vietnam debacle and extended it to create Pol Pot. A lot of Reagan's problems were clearing up his mess, and failing.

    Eisenhower, FDR, those guys I admire. New Dealers who knew what war was.

    CharlieSeattle -> Innes Mizner
    Did ja ever wonder why Reagan gets the teary e/RINO "neocon" accolades and not Eisenhower?

    Lets see...

    Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the MIC corrupting the US government.

    Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported them all after WWII in Operation Wet back.

    Reagan administration was #6th worst scandalous, worse than Obama. Eisenhower administration was #23rd worst scandalous, only because of VP Nixon!

    Face it, if Eisenhower was running for office today, the Reagan RINO "neocons" would KILL HIM!

    I am very glad Trump is not like Reagan.

    .............Trump/Eisenhower in 2016

    veerkg_23 -> Innes Mizner
    Pol Pot was a Chinese thing. The US supported the Royalists, whoever they were, in Cambodia. Mao decided he wanted a piece because he fear Soviet domination so formed the Khmer Rouge. Didn't turn out so well.
    Innes Mizner -> veerkg_23
    To begin with the Khmer Rouge were a local Nazi group that emerged from the ashes of Kissenger's cross border bombing. Then after they'd wiped out a third of their population neighbouring Vietnam invaded, ejected them and then retreated in one of the few genuine examples of military humanitarian interventions.

    The Chinese did hate the Vietnamese, so that annoyed them. But it annoyed Reagan more, because you yanks also had a big hang up about Vietnam kicking your arse.

    So Reagan sent in the Green Berets to train Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in guerilla tactics - and supply them with funds, weapons and diplomatic cover.

    Then Iran-Contra broke, Reagan sacrificed Ollie North on that bonfire, withdrew the Green Berets from Cambodia, and instead persuaded Maggie Thatcher to send in the SAS to support the Khmer Rouge.

    Now say what you want about Thatcher, but she was never a liar. She sent the SAS in and boasted about her support for the Khmer Rouge on 'Blue Peter', a British childrens TV programme.

    None of that is widely known in the US, I know, but I can provide supporting links that prove what I've claimed here if you ask for any.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican
    Sigh.

    Stop me when you have have read enough of my links, or when you need an explanation. I can go on and on without mentioning Chomsky.

    Kris -> Innes Mizner link
    Thanks, Innes. If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a link or two to read more about this, particularly US involvement.
    Innes Mizner -> Kris link
    NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Daniele Ganser, 2005 Cass Press.

    In yet another top-secret operation US Green Berets trained genocidal Khmer Rouge units in Cambodia after contact was established between Ray Cline, senior CIA agent and Steve Arnold, special adviser to US President Reagan. When the Iran Contra scandal got under way in 1983, President Reagan, fearing another unpleasant exposure, asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to take over. She sent the SAS to train Pol Pot forces. 'We first went to Thailand in 1984' senior officials of the SAS (British equivalent of CIA) later testified, 'The Yanks and us work together; we're close like brothers they didn't like it anymore than we did. We trained the Khmer Rouge in a lot of technical stuff', the officer remembers. 'At first they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them go easy'. The SAS felt uneasy with the operation and a lot of us would change sides given half a chance. That's how

    Innes Mizner -> Kris
    The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot, John Pilger, Covert Action Quarterly Fall 1997

    Plus PDF

    [Mar 11, 2016] WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen, that is what the Democrats have done

    Notable quotes:
    "... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
    "... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
    "... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
    "... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
    "... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
    "... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com

    Ussurisk chrisbrown, 10 Mar 2016 08:48

    What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done.

    The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.

    Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support to do much of anything.

    Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.

    FrankBnov14 -> ID8020624 ,

    Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
    ID8020624 -> twistsmom ,
    Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
    Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
    Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
    Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
    Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
    Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
    Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.

    Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?

    Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate. And he stated again that this is not a democracy.

    PearsonGooner -> Christopher3175 ,
    All US presidents are owned by corporations and bankers, not just Hillary, her and Bill have their own criminal enterprise.

    All US presidents are war criminals at worst and blatant liars at best.

    Bernie will get lead poisoning from as assassins bullet if, in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS

    PearsonGooner -> Mei P ,
    Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.

    The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.

    Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope

    subgeometer -> john7appleyard ,
    Pally with Clinton , then with Bush.

    The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces

    Kira Kinski ,
    This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton. America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America. Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.

    Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running who is for all of us, because he cares...

    >>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpm4rjejFgQ

    If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...

    >>> www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html

    Let's fix America together. Now is a once in a lifetime chance for a reboot.

    Jerome Fryer -> DracoFerret ,
    The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic.
    ID8020624 ,
    Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.

    And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.

    Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all in Philadelphia!

    The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!

    I am toasting over here,...Feeling the Bern!

    MaxBoson ,
    The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now 745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other' and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%. These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.

    Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President, and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.

    Martin Thompson -> smudge10 ,
    free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse

    amacd2 ,
    Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan

    Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.

    When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire" the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.

    Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".

    Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".

    Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
    American policy".

    Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"

    Quartz001 ,
    Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative isn't totally working... what will they try next?

    Corporate Media to Begin Adding Fangs to Images of Bernie Sanders
    http://www.theniladmirari.com/2016/03/corporate-media-to-begin-adding-fangs-to-all-images-of-bernie-sanders-and-push-narrative-storyline-fantasy-secretary-hillary-clinton-inevitable-democratic-presidential-candidate.html

    antipodes -> jambin ,
    I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
    I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear war.
    illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the 1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the streets of America before I would support her.
    Junnie Quorra Lee -> Junnie Quorra Lee ,
    (Can Hillary be trusted? Also See:)

    Reich Risked getting fired from Clinton Admin by slamming Corporate Welfare
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffmvPuGxmzA&feature=youtu.be

    (RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
    Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied over from Sander's after all.

    Bernie Sanders Was For Transgender Rights Before It Was A Thing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kCDFxODx4

    Hillary Paid Herself $250000 From Campaign Funds
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-paid-herself-250000-from-campaign-funds /

    Hillary Clinton says outsourcing jobs is good for America (top 1%)
    http://realprogress.online/2016/03/05/hillary-clinton-told-crowd-outsourcing-good-america /

    Her shock when he says he supports Bernie Sanders (the "socialist", rather than Hillary, on Fox News) is priceless!
    https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1080899312003122/?pnref=story

    Why I Switched My Support From Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders
    https://www.thewrap.com/carole-mallory-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-swtich-support-president-guest-blog /

    Hillary Calls for Michigan Gov's Resignation an Hour After Her Spox Slammed Bernie for Same (This pretty much sums up her dis-ingenious campaign)
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-calls-for-michigan-govs-resignation-an-hour-after-her-spox-slammed-bernie-for-same /

    ---

    Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.

    Clinton confronted for calling black kids 'super predators'
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/clinton-confronted-for-calling-black-kids-super-predators /
    Activist Ashley Williams Confronts Hillary Clinton On Calling Black People Super Predators
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFii9IYTIw&feature=youtu.be
    Prominent Black Activists Want to Set The Record Straight On Hillary Clinton!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACLnwDe7Ms

    [Mar 10, 2016] War Is A Drug Images From The Eerie Syrian Ceasefire Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.
    Oxford University Press. (2015)
    www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001...

    Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite."

    Life will not get any better, or at least much better, than it is already. And it's likely to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality is to grok the horrors of reality without retreating to the comfort of fantasy stories . Most aren't up to the task.

    "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
    -
    Ernest Becker
    The Denial of Death

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Father Thyme , |

    "A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting genocide will suffer genocide."

    Philip Atkinson www.ourcivilisation.com

    Its war. Who wins? The winner. For what that's worth.

    It's worth life. For what that's worth.

    Father Thyme , |

    It's not a bad thing...

    Humans are neither good nor bad. Really.

    The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)

    Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy. Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are only inherently social.

    Thesis #5: Humans are neither good nor evil.
    The Thirty Theses
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses

    SteveNYC , |

    "How much can you know about yourself, if you've never been in a fight?"

    Father Thyme , |

    We're all in a fight, if you...

    "Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win. You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that 100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole. I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole factory, my friend. If you exist, you're an asshole. You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're an asshole."
    -
    Nature is an asshole making factory
    Happyish
    Showtime, 2015
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No

    new game , |

    merica is the destabilizing force , ongoing, as soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress once again. now do you understand?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make sense.

    Israel is supposed to be a nightmare apartheid weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.

    TahoeBilly2012 , |

    Israel is a Rothchild backup State in case they ever got booted outta Europe.

    Kaleb , |

    Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the people" or is that "we the folk"

    [Mar 10, 2016] The Brazilian Earthquake The Empire Of Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians. ..."
    "... The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt. ..."
    "... It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them. ..."
    "... These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD. ..."
    "... The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action. ..."
    "... They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at SputnikNews.com,

    Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.

    This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly the logic behind the elaborate production.

    The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there are " elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might" - have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.

    Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.

    Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself, the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government leader in the Senate.

    Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di Pietro and the notorious 1990s Mani Pulite ("Clean Hands") investigation.

    And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.

    Round up the usual media suspects

    Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.

    And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested because he's corrupt.

    Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September 2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere.

    All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.

    The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation. Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal enforcer.

    What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist. As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.

    That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere - with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical, artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no smoking guns, something even Moro admits.

    And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire "project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate in 2018.

    Elite Plundering Rules

    None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners. Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery (which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the arrival of Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern" Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years. And few have ever been held accountable.

    Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.

    Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites. Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape, foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced, from the inside, in detail, how they operate.

    Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians.

    If this was a no-holds-barred crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is - the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated in front of the whole planet.

    Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?

    No consumption, no investment, no credit

    Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year; probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on the way to its worst recession since…1901.

    There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall global slump in commodity prices.

    The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt.

    Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6% - still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.

    The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has become "toxic" for global investors.

    Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down the elected government of a key BRICS player.

    And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate a political animal of his stature.

    Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis, Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.

    Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's wealth.

    So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global conflicts.

    It's the oil, stupid

    For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).

    A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals. Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend" these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.

    Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.

    Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would hand this over to the competition.

    And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014 to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.

    The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically, this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.

    It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them.

    Alok , Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    Pepe precise! Very good analysis...

    Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    I warned you about this last year, when neither Russia nor China had their version of BIS/SWIFT online.

    Newsboy, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    The Ides of March approaches. Ceaser's health is good.

    Relax!

    tarabel, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04

    I see Pepe the Unrequited Leninist is still banging his drum. These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD.

    As if Brazil needs ANYBODY else to show it how to play the corruption game.

    Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:12

    The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action.

    They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS.

    Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their "Safe Space".)

    [Mar 10, 2016] Dear Ms. Merkel, Be Careful What You Wish For Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
    "... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
    "... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
    "... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others."

    – Groucho Marx

    What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.

    Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.

    It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they will be to be pushed back after that date.

    They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover, in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow it down?

    Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns, Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.

    * * *

    Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation, and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?

    You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling refugees to Greece?

    Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably provoke?

    It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight (and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.

    So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp.

    The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse. Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.

    You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape the protagonists themselves either.

    * * *

    Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale.

    As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting, because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.

    What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people (93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine the terminology on the fly is immoral.

    In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game.

    All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power.

    * * *

    The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.

    There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.

    Be careful what you wish for, Angela.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jason , March 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must. It probably won't protect you from the NSA, but it will do the job of protecting you from your own ISP.

    That you have to protect yourself from your ISP is becoming just one more part of the sad reality that is the modern United States.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    +1 to the VPNs.

    I would say Tor is about as good except that Google, Akami, and Cloudflare sites (cough NC cough) regularly block Tor exit nodes. Still, you get a little more hardening using Tor browser than other browsers (using defaults).

    bob , March 7, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    "Verizon Wireless" Even if it were possible to use a VPN with a phone, it would still be affected. It's a MITM (man in the middle) attack.

    The story talks about verizon wireless, not what would be called an ISP by most people- home internet. Fios, time warner, Comcast…etc

    Tor? Hahahahahahaha

    Jump right into that military intel briar patch, for security®.

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Umm… I am not sure if you confusing VPN with something else, but yes. Its trivially easy to use VPN with almost any smartphone.

    As for Tor: i agree that State sponsor surveillance is still a risk, but as noted above, the topic was ISPs (and i mentioned websites). When you use a phone, your carrier acts as the ISP.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Oh and for those who might care…

    The header with your unique identifier can be scrubbed out when your using a VPN. Verizon only sees that you "went" to the VPN address…all sites you visit see you as coming from the VPN address. Neither the two shall meet without further snooping (which is not covered by the injection Verizon does…that we know of).

    Pat , March 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Damn, I knew I should have gone through the process to remove the drm from my e books. I might have to look into doing that immediately. But first I should check how my couple of nook newstand subscriptions will be handled.

    Whew, I have time. That is in the UK. Still a good warning shot over the bow…

    Benedict@Large , March 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    "… But U.S. critics say that could allow foreign companies to use the agreement to invalidate U.S. safety rules and regulations."

    One thing no one much mentions is that the TPP allows foreign corporations the ability to sue to invalidate regulations, but does not all local corporations the same. In this, TPP privileges foreign over local production, and ensures a race to the bottom on product place of origin.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    "A Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their
    territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public
    or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
    serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not
    made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by its law."

    I thought I saw the word morality some place else in the TPP, but apparently, the IP chapter was the only place. Bad research on my part! In any case, beware the ratchet clauses and the enemies within, lest your health system become just "Canadian™" enough for the world market.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Do you remember five men being arrested by NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by hedgeless_horseman on 03/08/2016 13:14 -0500

    disbelief
    - noun - dis·be·lief \?dis-b?-?l?f\
    : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real.

    >

    I cringe every time I see a, "9-11 Never Forget," bumper sticker, t-shirt, or beer coozie. I sigh and say to myself, "How can you never forget what you never knew?"

    There are many conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11, but this article focuses on just one conspiracy fact. The FBI released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives. These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA.

    Here is an interesting exercise that I invite all zerohedge readers to try. The next several times that you engage someone in a conversation, preferably a politician running for office , ask the following questions.

    Do you remember anything about five Middle Eastern men being arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around Manhattan in a van that tested positive for explosives...these were admitted foreign intelligence agents working undercover in the USA?

    In asking this question dozens of times, most recently in a conversation with two rabbis at one of the five Holocaust Museums in Texas, I have personally never, not once, had a person answer yes.

    However, if they do answer yes to you, then ask if they recall what nation the men were from. I would be shocked to hear any American say, "Israel."

    If they answer no, tell them they were Israeli Mossad agents, and ask if that helps them to remember.

    Again, I have never had anyone say that they knew anything about what I was talking about. Not once, not in any city, nor in any state of the USA. If the conversation does continue, what I do hear, almost exclusively, is utter disbelief that what I am saying is true.

    But it is true.

    Now, consider that since 9-11, the USA has invaded and occupied what was once the sovereign nation of Afghanistan for almost 15 years and counting, allegedly due to the role it played in 9-11. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, in this war effort.

    A girl who was burned beyond recognition by a U.S. drone in Afghanistan and left for dead in a trashcan before she had to undergo reconstructive surgery. The chemicals in the missiles burn so hot they can light a tank on fire, but this is somehow different from the chemical warfare allegedly waged by our enemy...

    Hellfire thermobaric warhead using a metal augmented explosive charge is used primarily in urban warfare, against bunkers, buildings caves and other concealed targets. This warhead is designed to inflict greater damage in multi-room structures, compared to the Hellfire's standard or blast-fragmentation warheads. The Metal Augmented Charge or MAC (Thermobaric) Hellfire, designated AGM-114N, has completed rapid development cycle in 2002 and was deployed during OIF by US Marines Helicopters in Iraq. The new warhead contains a fluorinated aluminum powder that is layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the explosive detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures. The AGM-114N is designed for deployment from helicopters such as the AH-1W or UAVs such as the Predator drones.

    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hellfire.htm

    I hear that more US soldiers serving in Afghanistan now die from suicide than are killed by the Afghanis, in what is now the longest war in American history . Yet, we are now in our third Presidential election in the USA since 9-11 and the occupation of Afghanistan, and the candidates aren't talking about any of this, and the Fourth Estate sure as hell isn't asking any questions.

    Why?

    Don't you want to know how the Presidential candidates feel about the fact that the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis? What about your congressmen and senators? Don't you want to know how our nation can imprison Afghanis in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, and torture them for information regarding 9-11... for more than a decade ...yet the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis to fly back to Israel and do television interviews .

    If our politicians respond with disbelief, like everyone else I have ever asked, then what does that tell us?

    If nobody from the Fourth Estate ever asks them these questions, then what does that tell us?

    If you are afraid to engage people with this type of conversation, then please read my article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/hedgelesshorsemans-revolutionar...

    Never forget: War is a racket!

    [Mar 09, 2016] Article Obama. Putin and the U.S. Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime. ..."
    "... Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity. ..."
    "... The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment. ..."
    "... This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done? ..."
    Mar 07, 2016 | OpEdNews

    Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War tensions with Russia by ordering saber-rattling by the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato? Professor Steven Cohen, writing in The Nation (2-29-16), says Obama is escalating the tensions with Russia in an unprecedented manner not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are being basically ignored by the mass media and none of the presidential candidates in either party have addressed them in the debates except indirectly (Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).

    The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400% military expenditures and deployments on or near the Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge concentration of Western military power on the Russian border has not been seen in modern times -- not even at the height of the Cold War. Cohen says Russia will have to respond by its own build-up including the positioning of advanced missiles. Thus the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox, increasing the probability of a regional war or worse if some minor incident flares up.

    This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his generals (the type of behavior a future President Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being capable of initiating). Why is this coming at the very time Russia is trying to de-escalate tensions with the U.S.?

    The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime.

    Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity.

    The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment.

    The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect. There is a slight possibility the dire consequences enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and that would be the election of Bernie Sanders as president. This event would open up progressive political action outside of the control of the establishment and could lead to a democratic renaissance in the U.S. The Left - Progressive movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some fringe elements). Unfortunately, the Left cannot agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory for the establishment and there is no third party that the Left is willing to unite behind.

    This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done?

    Born Lake Worth, FL 1942. Educated FSU and Graduate Center CUNY. Currently teaching philosophy in NYC. Associate editor of Political Affairs online.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Danger Of Media Blackout Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
    "... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
    "... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
    "... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
    "... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
    "... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
    "... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
    "... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
    "... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
    "... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.

    Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.

    This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."

    It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,

    "[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

    Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.

    Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop, before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony. If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West. No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.

    Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.

    Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.

    Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information. In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.

    A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders' actions on the world stage.

    However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.

    Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World" – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.

    The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy. Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.

    The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.

    This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.

    And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.

    Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things.

    First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.

    Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.

    In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."

    Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders, who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."

    FIFY

    BarnacleBill ,

    Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2016/01/nato-overplays-its-hand.html

    hedgeless_horseman ,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
    the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
    of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
    fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
    millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
    many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
    millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
    How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
    them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
    bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
    wounded or killed in battle?

    https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt

    Proctologist ,

    The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.

    SillySalesmanQu... ,

    We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963.

    MedicalQuack ,

    It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize. One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2015/04/news-rigging-has-arrived-astroturf-and.html

    swmnguy,

    Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.

    VWAndy ,

    Banker wars and fiat games in a never ending cycle.

    rainingFrogs,

    Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.

    We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence.

    Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.

    Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian.

    [Mar 04, 2016] After southern setbacks can Bernie Sanders revolution just be white?

    Notable quotes:
    "... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
    "... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
    "... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
    "... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
    "... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
    "... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
    "... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
    "... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
    "... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
    "... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
    "... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
    "... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
    "... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
    "... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
    "... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
    "... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
    "... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
    "... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
    "... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
    "... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
    "... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
    "... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
    "... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
    "... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
    "... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
    "... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
    "... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
    "... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
    "... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
    "... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
    "... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
    "... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
    "... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
    "... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
    "... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
    "... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
    "... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
    "... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
    "... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
    "... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
    "... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
    "... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
    "... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
    "... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
    "... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
    "... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
    "... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
    "... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
    "... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
    "... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
    "... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
    "... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
    "... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
    "... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
    The Guardian
    freepedestrian R. Ben Madison link

    Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL! He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.

    pretzelattack R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 05:40:40

    you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
    freepedestrian , 2016-03-03 05:39:50
    What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
    arbmahla lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:22:17
    Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas.
    lodger16 , 2016-03-03 05:01:22
    Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
    The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
    Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
    I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders' immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary Establishment can't control.
    IanB52 MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 04:53:49
    All this, even after Warren let Massachusetts go to Clinton by a hair while standing on the sideline.
    HowardFineHoward JackGC , 2016-03-03 04:46:20

    White liberals would NEVER vote for a Republican.

    For Hillary? Sure.

    AllyDavies , 2016-03-03 04:41:34
    This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the U.S..

    Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.

    Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much more than electoral politics.

    That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say, "overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around to see the fruits of those efforts.

    To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.

    The South has a totally different labor history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders, who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina) is unfair.

    Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met. This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest" movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.

    999Jasper OneRedBottle , 2016-03-03 04:21:30

    Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch

    Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far. What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.

    Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.

    Jane Marie Law Giacamo , 2016-03-03 04:06:52
    Yes. Here. Here. The Guardian is now a fox news llite on this. Wonder what the Clintons paid for this.
    lavala Zorroremade , 2016-03-03 04:02:01
    Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
    Othnocerus peter nelson , 2016-03-03 03:50:03
    This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.

    So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case.

    RobertHickson2014 JackGC , 2016-03-03 03:49:41
    There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.

    The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.

    Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return to the 1990s.

    bloggod , 2016-03-03 03:41:11
    the author of the article, Dan Roberts, has been slanting for Clinton for many months.

    Senator Sanders did as well or better in 5 states, winning progressive enclaves, rural areas, and Oklahoma.

    What this article purports is more of the same undercutting dishonesty.

    RobertHickson2014 R. Ben Madison , 2016-03-03 03:31:00
    States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.

    In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where to spend their time and resources.

    Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

    So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.

    For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates and all of their Super Delegates.

    So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place. I rest my case.

    funnynought , 2016-03-03 03:25:01
    Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really.
    europeangrayling o_lobo_solitario , 2016-03-03 03:13:59
    He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans, between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.

    But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes moderate and conservative whites.
    While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65 in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who are for Bernie is not true.

    In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.

    CraigieBob , 2016-03-03 03:08:22
    Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.

    How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program, or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor what she has sad and done TO them.

    MKB1234 , 2016-03-03 02:41:02
    The tactics that Hillary and her husband are employing show they are still very much worried about Bernie.

    Go Bernie go!!

    RandomMusings Haynonnynonny , 2016-03-03 02:22:22
    Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her.
    Giacamo , 2016-03-03 02:17:15
    I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance and mocking his losses in southern republican states?

    You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?

    What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?

    Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism?

    You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic order?

    Haynonnynonny sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:15:50
    It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 /
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 02:01:33
    Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
    RobertHickson2014 , 2016-03-03 02:00:53
    One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.

    The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?

    It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California in their process.

    Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.

    atkurebeach , 2016-03-03 01:59:44
    African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
    taxhaven , 2016-03-03 01:56:58
    It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.

    President Trump!

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:05:51
    Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for being leftists

    The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate

    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-03 01:02:19
    Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment?
    impledino Will Morgan , 2016-03-03 00:54:28
    Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that.

    American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse" isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions. I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.

    Mshand justdoug , 2016-03-03 00:47:06
    Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"

    The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump

    Herr_Settembrini MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-03 00:45:40
    Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen.

    If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests), it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that person is Clinton.

    peter nelson jmonty , 2016-03-03 00:33:31
    Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.

    If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?

    IanB52 Herr_Settembrini , 2016-03-03 00:29:27
    What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the entire party and the nomination process in her favor.

    We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying, the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in society.

    This sounds autocratic to me.

    TIM Anderson , 2016-03-03 00:29:03
    Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
    Z8r00k1yN , 2016-03-03 00:27:16
    He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
    Nate Dogg , 2016-03-03 00:24:54
    More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but keep your powder dry.

    In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic candidate.

    My 2 cents.

    MooseMcNaulty MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:16:17
    It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
    sbabcock Barry Smith , 2016-03-03 00:12:14
    Yeah, that's funny, incarcerations of black men went up during Bill Clinton. Hmm, interesting...
    Nate Dogg MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-03 00:12:12
    Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding.

    Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that they're done it.

    Mary Titus pretzelattack , 2016-03-03 00:10:32
    Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
    sbabcock , 2016-03-03 00:02:12
    If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html
    DrKropotkin , 2016-03-02 23:51:29
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/super-tuesday-predictions-point-to-trump-clinton-rout

    Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.

    It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.

    A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.

    We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites. The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton. http://iac.com/about/leadership

    Barry Smith , 2016-03-02 23:46:29
    The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary - from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary. It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
    MonotonousLanguor , 2016-03-02 23:43:39
    Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats. He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.

    Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

    Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    Tim MacNeill , 2016-03-02 23:39:49
    Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race.
    Mshand kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 23:37:35
    Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.

    Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds

    MooseMcNaulty IanB52 , 2016-03-02 23:37:17
    Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for Bernie.
    jmonty , 2016-03-02 23:36:37
    So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
    Mshand peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:35:05
    I predicted arrogant Clinton supporters would write a bunch of trash in order to try manifest the reality they want
    Mshand Zaarth , 2016-03-02 23:32:54
    That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker
    yinyanggrl DesertPear , 2016-03-02 23:30:22
    Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
    rgrabman , 2016-03-02 23:30:08
    What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial, there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
    jgwilson55 , 2016-03-02 23:29:32
    The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'.

    Do your homework writers!!! :)

    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:51
    For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html
    Thijs Buelens kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:28:07
    Yup in Colorado: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/2/latino_vote_helps_bernie_sanders_surge
    DesertPear ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 23:26:49
    The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations. Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
    Tomas Ocampo , 2016-03-02 23:26:40
    First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled media address people like Bernie Sanders: http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
    Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%) when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30% LESS than in 2008: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race /
    The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000 votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
    This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates, at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign /), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See, we told you- You should have listened to us."
    There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving for. #Feelthatbern
    BaconButty7 , 2016-03-02 23:25:51
    Really, Mr. Roberts, even by your standards this is an appallingly biased article. Have you no shame?
    MooseMcNaulty pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:25:13
    Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear. Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves. The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
    kerfuffler , 2016-03-02 23:23:09
    Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado? You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
    There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist. Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
    The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's historic.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
    Herr_Settembrini pretzelattack , 2016-03-02 23:23:04
    What are you talking about? Shrum didn't consult for Clinton. Dukakis, yes, Gore, yes, Kerry, yes, but not Clinton.
    Anjeska , 2016-03-02 23:18:00
    Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50.
    Mary Titus peter nelson , 2016-03-02 23:14:15
    To quote an analysis of Rushkoff's work:

    "He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents, may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard the wired person of the 21st century."

    We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through it now.

    peter nelson MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 23:03:39
    So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters) than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
    Herr_Settembrini IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:59:03
    "Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished."

    1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse than that).

    MrRico1 , 2016-03-02 22:54:49
    To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
    zolotoy notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 22:51:02
    Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
    zolotoy pappa john , 2016-03-02 22:44:03
    Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
    DesertPear , 2016-03-02 22:43:27
    More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political campaigns are their CASH COW.
    peter nelson IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:41:26
    But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
    aprestonlane , 2016-03-02 22:41:10
    Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
    pretzelattack IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:34:53
    remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family. she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what we need at this point).
    zolotoy , 2016-03-02 22:39:23
    Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable.
    kaltnadel , 2016-03-02 22:37:06
    There was a significant Hispanic vote in CO.

    I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward.

    steveky , 2016-03-02 22:34:41
    First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
    And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.

    The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?

    yinyanggrl Giancarlo , 2016-03-02 22:33:46
    Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:32:13
    Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... .
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 22:29:07
    I'm going to have to invoke Occam's Razor here.

    Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing scheming? I suppose it's possible.

    But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton ( http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be ). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.

    As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?". He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the kiss of death right there.

    They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone* could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.

    Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from the Democratic Party, and that's that.

    With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc.

    Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race.

    Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.

    Here's a nice amalgamation of polls (that were almost certainly not all sponsored by Fox News) that runs the numbers that you might be interested in; http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

    If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote for Hillary?

    Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she is the nominee.

    pretzelattack raffine , 2016-03-02 22:28:35
    did he once sing about superpredators?
    Giancarlo Michael Parsons , 2016-03-02 22:20:35
    I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues at hand.

    I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.

    sqeptiq , 2016-03-02 22:19:20
    Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
    IanB52 GringoReader , 2016-03-02 22:18:50
    It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
    IanB52 , 2016-03-02 22:14:08
    What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate, Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.

    I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian, doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate, muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.

    arbmahla Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 22:10:35
    "Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."

    Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
    She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed racists!

    Baldobilly Desiree Washington , 2016-03-02 22:08:05
    Hmm, let's see... . Hillary has:

    -the full support of the DNC
    -25 years of media celebrity
    - a popular ex-president campaigning for her
    -a swooning corporate media
    -cabinet experience
    -endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
    -a bottomless campaign war chest

    And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:59:06
    The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:54:08
    If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams, compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
    onevote , 2016-03-02 21:53:51
    Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.

    John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying it all together.

    Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
    Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...

    joey88 , 2016-03-02 21:51:23
    Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
    yelzohy ionee101 , 2016-03-02 21:49:21
    This could help explain the African American vote.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html?_r=1

    African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet. Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage of Sanders.

    Michael Parsons Sean Ryan , 2016-03-02 21:48:14
    I'm not for Trump but do not underestimate him, he has consistently outperformed expectations.

    Bernie used very little ammo against Hilary. He doesn't run negative campaigns

    Trump would be like an unwaivering battering ram. Polls already show he can beat her. Yet when polled against Bernie he gets crushed

    Marcedward p_promet , 2016-03-02 21:41:36
    " to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"

    Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.

    Shanajackson Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:41:02
    You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton. Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
    BigGaloot , 2016-03-02 21:40:14
    Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's on the ropes!" Every day.
    GringoReader , 2016-03-02 21:39:03
    It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion, the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters. It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton, as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this, instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the last few months.
    heinrichz , 2016-03-02 21:37:47
    More nonsense spin from the Guardian. Barbara Boxer claims to be a progressive ? Gimme a break!
    MooseMcNaulty notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 21:35:51
    I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
    Baldobilly circuit , 2016-03-02 21:33:05
    Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?

    Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.

    lanchrobster Porl D , 2016-03-02 21:32:57
    "lack of mainstream media coverage"

    But what do you mean no coverage? I've read a dozen mainstream media articles today about how Sanders is irrelevant and doesn't stand a chance!

    pretzelattack Bruce Hill , 2016-03-02 21:29:34
    as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you "rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the civil rights movement.
    ionee101 sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 21:27:35
    Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension much?
    Marcedward , 2016-03-02 21:22:29
    When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated", you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.

    As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV

    TangoAlphaDelta arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:20:25
    Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
    Juanita Withrow Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 21:19:48
    Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory of the women's right to vote 100 years ago. For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.

    Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement package.

    TangoAlphaDelta , 2016-03-02 21:16:17
    35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative states that are never going to go Democratic.
    Baldobilly , 2016-03-02 21:15:58
    But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.

    So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary.

    Mary Titus ryanpatrick9192 , 2016-03-02 21:15:12
    Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people. This is totally a divisive tactic.
    Will Morgan simpledino , 2016-03-02 21:14:01
    I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires and billonaires. Bully for him!
    Prehistorian Zepp , 2016-03-02 21:13:44
    You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
    Chris Woyton arbmahla , 2016-03-02 21:12:19

    By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill

    This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.

    I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense - that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately, factually inaccurate based on actual polling.

    nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.

    Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home and saved a few bucks.

    Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).

    So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him be our next president.

    Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.

    Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or something.

    Zepp Prehistorian , 2016-03-02 21:06:58
    Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file. And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is their guy is a monster.
    MooseMcNaulty heavenairport , 2016-03-02 21:05:45
    I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing, police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
    sdwoodruff , 2016-03-02 20:59:50
    Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
    Tom Wessel , 2016-03-02 20:58:26
    " I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white voters since the Oscars ."

    Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old, same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that sector's younger voters that want real change.

    Dan Henry notmurdoch , 2016-03-02 20:57:04
    She very obviously did not win the youth vote:

    "Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."

    http://usuncut.com/news/sanders-wins-4-super-tuesday-states/

    macktan894 , 2016-03-02 20:56:47
    I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie and his issues might be better known by more people.

    In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year. I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other person, the fake Bernie.

    Janette Dean , 2016-03-02 20:55:07
    I trust Robert Reich's perspective far more than this columnist Dan Robert's perspective. Robert Reich's post from yesterday on SuperTuesday at https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1163809603631634:0 says:

    "Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
    1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June, California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
    2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received $6 million on Monday alone.
    3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there, too)."

    Mary Titus simpledino , 2016-03-02 20:54:19
    And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
    MooseMcNaulty , 2016-03-02 20:54:09
    A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:52:13
    If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.

    This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....

    And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....

    And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.

    Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.

    The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst enemy and may yet fall at the gate.

    Regardless , the only course is to press on.

    HoldenC , 2016-03-02 20:50:19
    Now it's abundantly obvious why Glenn Greenwald left The Guardian....it's run by the Washington establishment.
    pappa john , 2016-03-02 20:49:02
    The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!

    Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the '08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay marriage?

    She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include $1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!

    She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for purpose

    ID0191623 , 2016-03-02 20:43:23
    Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3 GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go. Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie, look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
    I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-02 20:43:03
    Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated. But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics. Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
    pretzelattack Pepe Abola , 2016-03-02 20:41:25
    and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
    Forward123 , 2016-03-02 20:30:38
    Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.

    Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics :

    From Real Clear Politics :

    Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election. In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia. Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.

    "
    So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Obamas Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
    "... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
    "... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
    "... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
    "... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
    "... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
    "... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
    "... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for "convenience."

    Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."

    First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or 31,830 deleted emails.

    These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.

    Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated in The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom."

    ... ... ...

    In addition to born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well as Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never explained the political utility of owning a private server.

    Why did Hillary need to own a private server?

    Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government networks?

    ... ... ...

    There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server:

    The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

    The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

    As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

    ... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

    "There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it criminal wrongdoing?"

    ... ... ...

    As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:

    Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

    With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.

    .... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:

    The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.

    At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an effort to learn more about those emails...

    Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the State Department-led pre-release review process.

    Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof of born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn believes Hillary Clinton should "drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.

    ... ... ....

    Tim Black

    Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'. Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.

    This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!

    Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.

    Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed

    O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.

    Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California

    I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.

    This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen. Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.

    Karen Teegarden
    No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.

    Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry

    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    Andy Stanton http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../

    Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.

    Trevor Mooney
    The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails
    Steve Smith · Attorney at Myself
    Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish.
    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../
    Malcolm Smith, Translator at Self-Employed
    It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards.

    Carl Gainsworth

    This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
    Molly Cruz · Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
    Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic. My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.

    There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest here, as they are involved.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Former US Marine President Obama should be tried for treason

    Notable quotes:
    "... a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project. ..."
    "... The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. ..."
    "... They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers. ..."
    RT - SophieCo

    Sophie Shevardnadze:So I am here with activist Kenneth O'Keefe, it's really great to have you on our show. Kenneth, I know that you've led a human shield action in Iraq, right before the war started and then you were deported – do you follow what's going on in Iraq right now? For example, the November death toll was almost 1,000 and 2013 is the deadliest year since 2008. Why do you think the removal of Saddam hasn't improved the lives of Iraqis? – Or has it? I don't know…

    Kenneth O'Keefe: Well, I think if you really want to know the truth about the invasion in Iraq, there are clearly some incentives from the invasion: oil, securing oil was one of them, establishing prominent military bases in the region was another one, but the far less talked about reality is Israeli plans which made clear that the Balkanization of surrounding countries and particularly Iraq, if we go to Odid Yinon's plan for Israel in the 1980s, it lays out very clearly a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project.

    SS: Why would Israel benefit from an unstable Middle East, unstable Arab nations? Because what we see is that this instability actually is followed by fundamental Islam. People who are overthrown are either replaced by fundamentalist powers or there's just more sectarian violence that grows…

    KK: Yes, if would seem on the surface from a sane point of view that everything is going wrong, but in fact, when you fracture a country along sectarian divides, ultimately you weaken the country. The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. While you have these religious fundamentalist nutcases who are running around bombing and doing all sorts of stuff like that, you have a weakened, fractured country in Iraq, and that is the prerequisite for ultimately expanding Israel into a fantasy of a Greater Israel project. It doesn't seem sane and it's not sane because those who are trying to carry out these agendas are pure and simple psychopaths.

    SS: So you think that American administrations, one after another, have been following this plan for 30 years?

    KK: If you ask me how the world functions, then you have to understand one thing plain and simple – the head of the snake, the system of power is headed by the financial system. The bankers rule the Earth, through the private control of issuance of money, debt-based money which we all are supposed to pay. Ultimately with all of these things that they call "austerity" and whatnot, the bankers, basically, through the control of issuance of money which allows them to provide themselves with an infinite supply of money, means that they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought – so if we look at it, the vast majority of governments around the world, they are nothing more than puppets carrying out an agenda for the bankers, and the bankers at the top of this pyramid are, as I've said, plain and simple psychopath

    They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers.

    SS: So if what you're saying is true, that governments obey the big banks and the big money, then it would really take the people and a revolution in each country that you have named to actually change things around. Do you really see revolution taking place in America, for example?

    KK: It's already happening. I'll give you a great example why I'm optimistic about things in America. You know that the president of the US, traitor that he is, is actually a constitutional lawyer? He actually has trained at the highest levels [of academia] in constitutional law. Do you know how obscene it is that somebody who was trained in constitutional law, giving himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, in any part of the planet with no jury, no trial, no conviction, nothing – this man is a dictator who has assigned himself the right to execute anyone, including US citizens. I am confident that at some point the American patriots, who seem to be in a bit of a coma and have been sleeping for a long time, are going to wake up soon and realize that when they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, the president of the US also took that oath and has breached it so badly that he should be arrested and charged with treason right now – and ultimately all of the sycophants of the US Congress who pass things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, again, completely a contrary to the US constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. These people need to be arrested, and a government needs to be put in place that actually honors the US Constitution, and I honestly believe that's going to happen, one way or another.

    ... ... ...

    SS: So you actually bring me to my next point, which is Syria. You're saying the allegations in the Western press that it wasn't Syria but Iran that was the actual goal, the final goal, are true. What happens now if Assad starts to look like he is finally achieving a decisive victory, how will the US respond, do you think?

    KK: Again, keep in mind that the real problem that Assad faces is that, well, yes, there are major human rights violations that happen in Syria and then in every other Arab country, and the US and the Western world – ultimately there are human rights violations of obscene levels, especially in the US. So they are in no position to talk about other leaders – our leaders, the US president can execute anyone, anywhere, anytime – and he does. So how can we talk about Bashar Al-Assad seriously and say that this man is a problem…

    SS: Oh, Kenneth, they will talk about that and [say] the world listens to the American president, that's the difference. They will talk about that, they keep talking about it. That was the whole purpose of why they wanted to overthrow Assad, because there were supposedly human rights violations in Syria.

    KK: The point that I'm making is that the US has given himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime for any pretext, any bogus reason. Is that more of a problem to the world than Bashar Al-Assad? Of course it is! It's much more of a problem that the president of the US says he can execute anyone, anywhere anytime, and yet we're sitting here talking about Bashar Al-Assad which, granted, this man has committed crimes in Syria, there's no question of that. But when we look at the US president, when we look at Israel, we look at Britain – that alliance, this true Axis of Evil between these three countries. The amount of devastation that has occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other parts of world – Yemen, Pakistan – it's so devastating, I think its beggars belief that we as people can be conned into thinking that Bashar Al-Assad is the problem, or that Ahmadinejad was the problem. We are the problem; we in the West are the problem, especially the US government. It really is quite ridiculous that we get manipulated into saying, "Oh, we have to take care of this problem over there." The problem is in our own backyard, and we know this. We better take care of our dirty, filthy House of corruption. The US Congress is nothing but a den of traitors, the most sycophantic, disgusting traitors you can imagine, and the White House has got a dictator. This is a problem; this is a major problem, a much bigger problem than what's happening in Syria or Bashar Al-Assad.

    SS: Now, you have great knowledge and strong opinions about events in the Middle East. Iran has recently softened its attitude toward its opponent after decades of deadlock. Israel is annoyed. How do you see that developing?

    KK: I think it's a reflection of the sanity of people around the world who realize that any kind of attack on Iran is tantamount to initiating a full-scale Third World War, which of course could very well and almost inevitably would lead to a war with China and Russia. This is pure madness and those of us who've lost loved ones or who have served in combat like myself, and others who know the devastating cost of war, not just for the so-called "victor" – because the only victor really is the bankers, quite frankly – but even those who are supposedly on the winning side suffer greatly, and testimony to that fact aside from 1 million to 2 million dead in Iraq is the 22 American servicemen a day who are committing suicide because of the horrendous things that they were told to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy, this shift in policy to actually resolve this conflict with Iran, this false conflict, in truth – is a reflection of the will of the people, if you ask me, who are starting to achieve their goal.

    SS: You think Netanyahu is bluffing, because I've spoken to a couple of Israeli parliamentarians, I've spoken to Israelis – and they all are for a strike.

    KK: No, I don't think he is bluffing, he is an absolute psychopath and he reflects the agenda for the powers that be in Israel. Each one of these players – Netanyahu, George W. Bush, Obama, Cameron – they are all puppets and they all are supposed to read a different script at different times, depending on what the agenda is. The agenda is shifting slightly. It looks like Israel and the people of Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, are like sheep being led into slaughter, because ultimately the policies of Israel are completely and totally unsustainable. Even the CIA said in 2009 that Israel would not even exist within 20 years. Henry Kissinger himself said it wouldn't exist in 10 years, and the reason why is because its policies are totally self-destructive. The puppet masters are quite happy to sacrifice the people of Israel, they are going to destroy themselves if they do attack Iran, because Iran can fight back and does have allies, and a lot of countries are sick and tired of Israel's threats to both its immediate neighbors and even the rest of the world. When we look at the Samson Option, I encourage people to Google "Samson Option" and look at the threat Israel has posed to the world if things don't go its way.

    SS: When you talk about the US, [it's] Israel's main supporter – but right now we see that it's kind of open to Iran as well, knowing, how much anxiety that raises among Israelis – what does it tell you about the US?

    KK: It tells me that people are beginning to realize their power. I think there are things that correlate – the approval rating for Barack Obama and the US Congress is as low as it's possible to get, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent, 20 percent maximum. The people have come to a point where they are sick and tired of being lied to, they know they are being lied to, and when they see their so-called leaders try to cooperate with Israel and get another war that would lead to disastrous consequences for the region and for the US and every other person involved – they've had it. The reflection of the policies is indeed that of the people, it's the people who are sick and tired. I do see that there is some demarcation going on between Israel and the US, but this is because the power of people is rising - and as we saw on Syria, the Congress and the president were all basically saying, "The red line was crossed, blah-blah-blah," and this blatantly false flag attack in Ghouta in Syria has backfired, they were not able to carry out this agenda, and this is only empowering the people that much further.

    SS: So you think Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think it's absolutely hypocritical and insane that we would sit here and fixate on Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program, which I don't believe exists, but nonetheless, who could blame Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons? If the US and the West taught any lessons to the rest of the world with the invasion and occupation of Iraq it was that Saddam Hussein was a fool for actually disarming, because by disarming all he did was make that much easier for the empire to come in and destroy the entire country. So the lesson we teach to the world is that the best way to defend yourself is to get yourself a nuclear weapon, and of course the biggest culprit of using nuclear weapons and producing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is my birth nation, the US, and I find it absolute insane that we sit here and talk about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program when we know the US is producing every kind of weapon under this sun. It is spending more than any other military on the planet combined, and it's involved in more war, more death and more suffering than any other nation combined. And yet it's sitting there on a pedestal talking about other nations developing weapons of mass destruction? It is insane that we even allow them to do this, the first nation that needs to disarm without questions is the US, and the first nation to be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity is my birth nation – the United States. Once we start seeing actions like this, then we'll know the people in positions of power are serious, because ultimately the rest of the world is sick and tired of the impunity and continuous threats of a Third World War. We've reached the point now when human beings around the planet are realizing we can't do this. We can't have a Third World War, this is not a game.

    SS: But you haven't answered my question – do you think Iran should be able to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think that every nation should disarm right now, every nation that has a weapons program should be inspected by a legitimate international body and those nations with the highest amount of WMDs, nuclear weapons should be the first ones to start disarming. When those nations start disarming, then I would say that the rest of the world will also have to show that it's disarming as well. While the US is able to maintain the largest military might in the history of the world and continues to use those weapons against all other countries, I only see it as a pure hypocrisy that the West would say that other countries can't have such things. I don't want any weapons in this world, but it's not right for us in the West and particular for the US to say that we can have all these weapons and for the rest of the world – we'll bomb you to the Stone Age if you even try to think to defend yourself. It's beyond hypocrisy, it's ridiculous. The US needs to disarm first, and the world needs to assist on that.

    SS: I've read in your blog that you said this world needs one thing above all others – and that's sanity. But doesn't sanity depend on what side of the argument you're on?

    KK: No, I think we were all sane when we were children and unfortunately what passes as education is actually an indoctrination and through indoctrination we've turned into really largely a bunch of dupes who've enslaved ourselves without even knowing it, but when you regain the capacity to think for yourself, to actually become human, it becomes very clear. For instance, if we look at these politicians who are historically lying to us, over and over and over again, and we realize that the war-making are absolutely inherently interested in perpetuating war, and if we look at the people in the positions of power, we see how they continuously reap major bonuses with the banks – they get bailouts to the tune of trillions and yet we're being told that we're not working hard enough, that we're in debt. All of these things combined lead us to the point when we reach a certain level of sanity, and realize: "You know what? This entire system does not represent me," and in fact every person on this planet is fighting the same enemy. That enemy uses the financial system to enslave all of us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; in fact more and more people are figuring this out. A point of sanity brings us to the point when we realize: "Enough, this is a game that cannot be played, we're risking our own collective suicide here and as a sane person I will not contribute in any way towards this never-ending policy of war which is leading us to the brink of destruction". This is not about being intelligent, this is about being sane first and foremost. The average person can understand this very easily.

    [Mar 02, 2016] Why the Arabs Don't Want Us in Syria by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    A really interesting analyses of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. ..."
    "... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders. ..."
    "... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
    "... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
    "... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years. ..."
    "... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
    "... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran." ..."
    "... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. ..."
    "... Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." ..."
    "... The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria." ..."
    "... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
    "... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | POLITICO Magazine

    America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

    To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

    But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.

    This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders.

    ***

    For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.

    Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime.

    Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.

    Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

    Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The Guardian newspaper.

    ... ... ...

    Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author. Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."

    ... ... ...

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."

    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

    In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's lexicon. A damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

    As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed by the U.S.

    Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime." The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

    Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.

    Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State. To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.

    In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.

    In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.

    The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.

    ... ... ..

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.

    [Mar 02, 2016] Why the Arabs Don't Want Us in Syria by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

    A really interesting analyses of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. ..."
    "... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders. ..."
    "... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
    "... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
    "... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years. ..."
    "... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
    "... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran." ..."
    "... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. ..."
    "... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
    "... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | POLITICO Magazine

    America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

    To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

    But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.

    This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders.

    ***

    For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.

    Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime.

    Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.

    Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

    Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The Guardian newspaper.

    ... ... ...

    Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author. Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."

    ... ... ...

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."

    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.

    In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada, a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents, published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain, invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines were financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's lexicon. A damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

    As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed by the U.S.

    Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime." The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

    Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.

    Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State. To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.

    In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.

    In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.

    The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.

    ... ... ..

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.

    [Mar 01, 2016] Could Hillary Clinton Be a Sociopath?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
    "... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
    "... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
    "... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
    "... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
    "... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
    "... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
    Mar 01, 2016 | TheBlaze.com

    John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?

    Can we choke down the fact that she willingly took on that rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated that a female attorney would help his chances.)

    Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped her client cheat justice?

    I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?

    I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis.

    And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter, or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally deaf, dumb, and blind?

    No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear on Fox. Not when you can read what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:

    "I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."

    Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with stone-faced killers like Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")

    Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.

    We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers who warned that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.

    But we expect better.

    So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.

    We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering loner who dresses up as a clown and murders children, or a late-term abortionist who collects fetal feet as trophies.

    But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt.

    Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.

    I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.

    That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself, but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral monster.

    My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?

    John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    [Feb 20, 2016] Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties

    Notable quotes:
    "... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
    "... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
    "... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
    "... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
    "... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
    "... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
    "... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Terje M, February 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

    3 Stories about MH17:

    An eyewitness account from someone who was part of the team of OSCE inspectors and observers :

    http://slavyangrad.org/2014/10/28/they-are-playing-tennis-three-sets-every-match-to-try-and-kill-us/

    Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.

    https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtlnieuws.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fbinnenland%2Fom-zomer-bewijs-over-raket-mh17

    Which brings me to the third story, what types of Western satellites were over SE Ukraine at the time.
    http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/sigint-imint-and-mh17.html

    The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?

    But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:

    2. Radar IMINT

    The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.

    Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite versions).

    All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014, so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2 made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few examples.

    Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems.

    The article has more interesting information about these satellites.

    Cortes , February 19, 2016 at 4:09 am
    MH17 is likely to become just a minor curiosity like the affair of the Libyan pilot, dead for 12 days, allegedly responsible for the Ustica Massacre:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870

    Jeremn , February 19, 2016 at 2:31 am
    Very interesting. I also think the Germans said that they had picked up some Target Acquisition Radar of the launch unit)?

    http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flug-mh17-regierung-hat-keine-sicheren-erkenntnisse-ueber-abschuss-a-990288.html

    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 4:54 am
    Astounding!
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
    Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe!
    Patient Observer , February 19, 2016 at 5:12 am
    'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.

    [Feb 18, 2016] Lynn Nottage: Nostalgia is a disease many white Americans have

    Notable quotes:
    "... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
    "... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
    "... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
    "... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
    "... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    AmyInNH seastar

    6m ago 0 1 Well thank you for clearing that up. All this time I thought Washington was getting intensely corrupt and now I know it's all in my head.
    Nostalgia is for stability, not "white culture".
    As for immigrant labor, I'm sure this chart, one of the many means of robber baron tactics, flooding the labor market, is mere coincidence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_foreign_born_in_the_US_labor_force_1900_to_2007.png Reply | Report Maritz , 2016-02-18 01:18:17
    It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education. Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.

    Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap. Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about race. Talk about entitlement.

    EpaminondasUSA , 2016-02-18 01:16:26
    Lynn Nottage never saw Spike Lee's "Crooklyn." One would call that nostalgic.
    elcantwell , 2016-02-18 00:20:29
    The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has not ended.
    Thatingles GoatyGoY , 2016-02-18 00:12:40
    Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
    The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts toward more radical candidates.
    Thatingles seastar , 2016-02-18 00:06:27
    You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation?

    Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?

    Thatingles , 2016-02-18 00:01:27
    For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.

    And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.

    So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.

    Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.

    Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider picture is this:

    The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.

    Marc Smith , 2016-02-17 22:37:43
    Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
    GeoffP ThaddeusTheBold , 2016-02-17 21:37:18

    They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone

    What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it alongside him.

    Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you? Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.

    pintoks , 2016-02-17 21:25:37
    The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
    strobi Cannylad1919 , 2016-02-17 21:22:47
    the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed young black woman, who do you think security will follow?

    There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were picked more often, everything else being equal.

    It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.

    Surf Murf , 2016-02-17 21:15:27
    This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists. No no lady bone head.

    First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists, it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that the majority of us Americans know and see each day.

    By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.

    Individualist RollTide16 , 2016-02-17 20:38:25
    Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.

    Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.

    [Feb 17, 2016] Bigger Than Watergate - Hillary Clinton And The Syrian Bloodbath

    While we would be the first to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia" and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we agree 100 percent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
    "... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
    "... And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
    "... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
    "... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
    "... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
    "... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
    "... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
    "... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
    "... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
    "... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
    "... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
    "... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
    "... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
    "... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
    "... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
    "... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
    "... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
    "... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
    "... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
    "... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
    "... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
    "... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
    "... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
    "... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
    "... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
    "... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
    "... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
    "... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

    But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

    This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

    In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

    As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

    Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.

    This idea is incredibly naďve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.

    Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

    When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

    In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go."

    Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:

    The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.

    Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.

    The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

    The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?

    This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

    Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?

    And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

    Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.

    It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.

    Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.


    Steven Beliveau, Northeastern University
    The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER.
    Matt Hemingway
    Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
    Max South
    Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.

    Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.

    Ram Samudrala, Professor and Chief, Division of Bioinformatics at SUNY Buffalo
    Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/). But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for the average person more than anyone else.
    Charles Hill, Works at Seif employed
    Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not.
    Masha Manning, Houston, Texas
    Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
    Bijan Sharifi
    as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
    Timothy Francis, Project Manager at CHC Consulting
    Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello?
    Dianne Primmer, Houston, Texas
    This is the much vaunted foreign policy that Hillary's supporters think qualify her for the presidency. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

    Christopher Head, Lighting Designer at Freelance Lighting Designer

    More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
    Gary Pack
    Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
    Sheia Mahone
    This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.

    Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him.

    Ronald Burker, Boonsboro Senior High
    James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.

    The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better life.

    Harvey Riggs
    That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.

    More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.

    Robert Chan
    what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
    Kathleen Lowy, MSW: Rutgers
    They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...

    Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world.

    Sheila Rajan
    Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America, this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
    Charlene Avis Richards, Works at Self-Employed
    Excellent article.

    But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department.

    Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:

    See More

    Leo Myers, Univ. of Minnesota
    Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries, war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed rubric of "national defense".

    Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!

    James Aliberti, Wentworth Institute of Technology
    Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.

    Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here!

    [Feb 17, 2016] The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived.

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 11:51 am

    The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.

    If you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.

    The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and an oil exporter?

    I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.

    The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of paper printed by your enemy?

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 12:13 pm
    If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.

    If your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.

    Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers, many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.

    To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.

    They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 3:01 pm
    But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.

    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.

    Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.

    You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert that advantage and kill the enemy.

    Dennis Coyne , 02/16/2016 at 3:58 pm
    Hi Watcher,

    By your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.

    Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.

    Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the barriers to entry are low.

    OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it is simply a strategy for losing money.

    Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 4:08 pm
    Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.

    Oh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.

    Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 8:40 pm
    Tell that to the Soviets.
    likbez , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    "Tell that to the Soviets."

    Perfect --

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11220027/Cheap-oil-will-win-new-Cold-War-with-Putin-just-ask-Reagan.html

    http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/reason-for-ussr-collapse-oil-a-german-banks-not-reagan

    http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/sovietdecline.htm

    Jimmy , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am
    I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'. I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors. It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying 'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into the gutter.
    Watcher , 02/17/2016 at 11:59 am
    The predator is not KSA.

    [Feb 16, 2016] Ukraines Poroshenko asks embattled PM to resign

    news.yahoo.com

    Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.

    IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed on to when the package was agreed.

    Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than 43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.

    [Feb 13, 2016] The Obama Administration Recklessly Escalates Confrontation With Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify. ..."
    "... Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. ..."
    "... Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it. ..."
    The Nation

     he Obama administration has just recklessly escalated its military confrontation with Russia. The Pentagon's announcement that it will more than quadruple military spending on the US-NATO forces in countries on or near Russia's borders pushes the new Cold War toward actual war-possibly even a nuclear one.

    The move is unprecedented in modern times. With the exception of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Western military power has never been positioned so close to Russia. The Obama administration's decision is Russian roulette Washington-style, making the new Cold War even more dangerous than the preceding one. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify.

    The decision will also have other woeful consequences. It will undermine ongoing negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, and it will further divide Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington's increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.

    Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. Never before in modern times has such a dire international situation been so ignored in an American presidential campaign. The reason may be that everything related to the new Cold War in US-Russian relations since the Ukrainian crisis erupted in November 2013 has been attributed solely to the "aggression" of Russian President Vladimir Putin or to "Putin's Russia"-a highly questionable assertion, but long the media's standard policy narrative.

    Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ˝ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Theres A Special Place at The Hague for Madeleine Albright

    Notable quotes:
    "... Too bad she is a neocon monster. ..."
    "... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified. ..."
    "... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
    "... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
    "... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
    "... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
    "... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
    "... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs." ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy has no glass ceiling.

    Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that most young American women who still plan to remain involved in the electoral process would rather go to hell than vote for Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, from her seat of war criminal wisdom, has informed the naive lasses that support for Bernie Sanders will land them in the VIP room in a superstitious underground torture chamber.

    By repurposing her own original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission standards because she's probably going there.

    Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all, she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army, escaped to Serbia, and she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.

    Too bad she is a neocon monster.

    Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the Nazi death camps, Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.

    When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?

    Let's ask the Rwandans.

    Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:

    "Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)

    "The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time, it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19] But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16

    Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy. She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is irrefutable at this point in history that the U.S. pretext for military intervention was fabricated.

    Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government. (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo.

    The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power, and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation.

    War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.

    Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict, calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."

    Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!

    [Feb 12, 2016] Central Banks Are Trojan Horses, Looting Their Host Nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... less than 20% ..."
    "... corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest ..."
    Zero Hedge

    A Nobel prize winning economist, former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, and chairman of the President's council of economic advisers (Joseph Stiglitz) says that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank loan money to third world countries as a way to force them to open up their markets and resources for looting by the West.

    Do central banks do something similar?

    Economics professor Richard Werner – who created the concept of quantitative easing – has documented that central banks intentionally impoverish their host countries to justify economic and legal changes which allow looting by foreign interests.

    He focuses mainly on the Bank of Japan, which induced a huge bubble and then deflated it – crushing Japan's economy in the process – as a way to promote and justify structural "reforms".

    The Bank of Japan has used a heavy hand on Japanese economy for many decades, but Japan is stuck in a horrible slump.

    But Werner says the same thing about the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has used loans and liquidity as a weapon to loot European nations.

    Indeed, Greece (more), Italy, Ireland (and here) and other European countries have all lost their national sovereignty to the ECB and the other members of the Troika.

    ECB head Mario Draghi said in 2012:

    The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states' national budgets.

    ***

    "I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level."

    ***

    "Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the financial markets."

    And yet Europe has been stuck in a depression worse than the Great Depression, largely due to the ECB's actions.

    What about America's central bank … the Federal Reserve?

    Initially – contrary to what many Americans believe – the Federal Reserve had admitted that it is not really federal (more).

    But – even if it's not part of the government – hasn't the Fed acted in America's interest?

    Let's have a look …

    The Fed:

    Moreover, the Fed's main program for dealing with the financial crisis – quantitative easing – benefits the rich and hurts the little guy, as confirmed by former high-level Fed officials, the architect of Japan's quantitative easing program and several academic economists. Indeed, a high-level Federal Reserve official says quantitative easing is "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time". And see this.

    Some economists called the bank bailouts which the Fed helped engineer the greatest redistribution of wealth in history.

    Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in Lehman's accounting fraud, (and see this), and pushed to pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as Robert Reich notes, Geithner was "very much in the center of the action" regarding the secret bail out of Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black points out: "Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October 2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but instead covered up its depth"

    Indeed, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office calls the Fed corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest. Nobel prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz says the World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like the Fed as being corrupt and untrustworthy. The former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption. "Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don't see why it wouldn't be here," he said.

    But aren't the Fed and other central banks crucial to stabilize the economy?

    Not necessarily … the Fed caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, and many economists – including several Nobel prize winning economists – say that we should end the Fed in its current form.

    They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy. For example:

    Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who "said that what he called a 'natural' competitive banking system without a 'central' bank would be better…. 'nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.'"

    Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well. For example, Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote:

    The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.

    Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank, the Bank of England. Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764, this is what he observed:

    When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:

    "We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."

    In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.

    Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

    (for more on the Currency Act, see this.)

    And things are getting worse ... rather than better. As Professor Werner tells Washington's Blog:

    Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe, yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring banking crises', central banks are usually handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background here and here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.

    Georgetown University historian Professor Carroll Quigley argued that the aim of the powers-that-be is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." This system is to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."

    Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact.

    [Feb 10, 2016] Theres a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg

    Re: Albright – There's a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    Jim Haygood

    Meanwhile, the kids she hasn't 'neutralized' yet scream when they see Albright's ghoulish visage, calling in another drone strike:

    https://griid.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/albright_at_war-thumb.jpg

    One word, Madeleine: Nuremberg.

    sleepy , February 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Clinton campaigned in 2008 on the notion of inevitability. When that inevitability showed cracks, she failed. She has campaigned in 2016 on the notion of inevitability. Same result.

    In 2016 as in 2008 she has no alternative game plan other than to react with childish insults, as if the thought of having a real challenger was never considered. Must be that famous legend in her own mind at work. Another example of poor judgment.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 9, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Inevitability is a nice way to put entitlement. "I'm with Hillary" says the campaign is about Hillary's personal success. She could have run a unity campaign about electing more Democrats and just ignored a challenger.

    Jim Haygood , February 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Not to mention that her HillaryCare celebrity tour of six Congressional committees in 1993-94 also was premised on inevitability.

    Results : (1) not a single committee reported out a bill; (2) the Democratic party lost its majority in the House for the first time in forty years.

    How many times do we have to watch this boring movie … especially with such dismal casting?

    ekstase , February 9, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Perhaps we should be grateful for the blind spots. They're a big part of karma's delightful unfolding.

    [Feb 05, 2016] Oil as a strategic weapon of the US empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil ( gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say. ..."
    "... This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be. ..."
    "... The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market. ..."
    "... As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar. ..."
    "... Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    yiedyie, 02/04/2016 at 5:51 pm
    Could this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.

    When camels are thirsty they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own blood relieve their thirst.

    Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.

    This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.

    Stavros H, 02/05/2016 at 12:16 am
    As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say.

    The problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be.

    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:

    *Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:

    a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.

    b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)

    North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of the following reasons:

    a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits. Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.

    b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.

    As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC, nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.

    Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even.

    But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.

    Javier, 02/05/2016 at 4:14 am
    Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.

    The available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio. The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.

    I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to cut production unilaterally.

    Ron Patterson, 02/05/2016 at 8:51 am
    The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?

    I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to tell them what to do.

    But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).

    Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:

    The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…

    The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.

    likbez , 02/05/2016 at 10:22 am
    Ron,

    That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?

    "US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite (Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.

    The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Lies of the Neocons From Leo Strauss to Scooter Libby

    Notable quotes:
    "... A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strausss ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case. ..."
    "... So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are above religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like mans mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is far more important politically than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies. (AR, p. 148). ..."
    "... But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the smaller lies like weapons of mass destruction, the smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud. And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their superior rhetorical skills to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called rhetoric, we call spin. ..."
    "... All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of ones own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes noble. This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a noble lie a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strausss hands the noble lie becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strausss noble lies are far from noble. They are intended to dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite (AR, p. 79). ..."
    OpEdNews
    All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher" Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called "Leocons."

    Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a Jewish-German émigré from the Nazi regime who eventually landed at the University of Chicago where he developed a following that has achieved enormous prominence in American politics. Among his students were Paul Wolfowitz who has openly acknowledged that he is a follower of Straus as has the godfather of neconservatism, Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol begat William Kristol, the director of operation for the DC neocons, editor of the Weekly Standard and "chairman" of the Project for the New American Century, which laid out the plans for the Iraq War. (PNAC also opined in 2000 that a Pearl Harbor-like event would be necessary to take the country to war, and one year later, presto, we had the strange and still mysterious attack of September 11.) For his part Paul Wolfowitz begat Libby, in the intellectual sense, when he taught Libby at Yale. Others stars in the necon firmament are Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and lesser figures like Abram Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, created by Donald Rumsfeld. Shulsky, also a student of Strauss, was responsible for fabricating the lies masquerading as intelligence that were designed to get the U.S. into the war on Iraq. While the neocons have a passion for the Likud party and Zionism, they also count among their number not a few pre-Vatican II Catholics and an assortment of cranks like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton and crypto fascists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick. The list goes on and Justin Raimondo has documented it in great detail over the years on Antiwar.com. But it is enough to note that Cheney's alter ego was Libby, and Rumsfeld's second in command until recently was Wolfowitz. So both Cheney, the de facto president with an apparently ill perfused cerebrum, and the geezer commanding the Pentagon have been managed by younger and very prominent Straussians for the past five years.

    A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strauss's ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), "Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case."

    For those who wish to understand the neocon agenda, Drury's books are essential reading. She is clear and thorough.

    Of pertinence to "Scooter's" case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss's idea that a "philosopher elite" (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone remarked before last Friday, "Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?" a man who shunned the spotlight and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the "vulgar" herd, as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate "higher truths" such as the inevitability and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state.

    So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are "above" religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like man's mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is "far more important politically" than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary "to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies." (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do except perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel. Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists. It's a win win situation, from their point of view

    But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the "smaller" lies like "weapons of mass destruction," the "smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud." And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their "superior rhetorical skills" to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called "rhetoric," we call spin.

    All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of one's own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes "noble." This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a "noble lie" a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strauss's hands the "noble lie" becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strauss's "noble lies are far from "noble." They are intended to "dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite" (AR, p. 79).

    One other idea of Strauss's bears on the situation of "Scooter" Libby. How is the Straussian philosophical elite going to get from the halls of academe to the corridors of power? This depends on good luck and the "chance" encounter between the powerful and the Straussian. Here the contemporary neocons go beyond Strauss and leave nothing to chance. It would even appear that they look for the stupid, gullible or those who are mentally compromised. So William Kristol becomes Vice President Quayle's chief of Staff, and Libby becomes the right hand man to the addled Cheney as well as assistant to the Quayle-like Bush. And there are many more.

    Finally, Drury makes the point the Strauss and the neocons are not really conservative at all. They are radicals, at war with the entire modern enterprise which makes them turn to the ancients for their inspiration and even there they need to distort the teachings of Socrates or Plato to make their case. But the Enlightenment comes to us with the advance of science to which Strauss is also hostile. He says that he is not against science as such "but popularized science or the diffusion of scientific knowledge.Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret from the common man" (PI, p. 154). But this is impossible. Science by its very nature is a vast social enterprise requiring the widest possible dissemination of its findings. Any society that puts a lid on this will fail, and so by natural selection, the Straussian project is doomed to fail.

    But before that happens the Straussians can do a lot of damage. As Drury says, they "cannot be trusted with political power." But we can learn from them the importance of boldness, not in the pursuit of the "noble lie" but of the truth. And we must be certain that we are vigorous as we hunt them down and get them out of power. In that effort Shadia Drury has done us a great service.

    John Walsh can be reached at [email protected].

    He thanks Gary Leupp a regular on CounterPoint.com for pointing him to Shadia Drury's books.

    [Feb 03, 2016] The Gloating of the Neocons

    Notable quotes:
    "... The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. ..."
    "... First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons ..."
    "... On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. ..."
    "... In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection." ..."
    "... Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest. ..."
    "... Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." ..."
    "... Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject. ..."
    "... No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with? ..."
    "... A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was. ..."
    October 31, 2014 | counterpunch.org

    The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Broadly conceived by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney immediately after 9/11, it initially lacked a coherent justification . But as Condoleezza Rice noted at the time, the tragedy brought "opportunities." (People in fear can be persuaded to support things policy-makers long wanted, but couldn't quite sell to the public.)

    First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons for their war.

    On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

    In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection."

    But Clarke's recollection of the event continues:

    "He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'"

    Few policy decisions in modern history can rival the evil of that demand that the U.S. intelligence community deliberately contrive a false historical narrative, to justify a war that has destroyed a country and killed half a million people.

    Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest.

    The Powell UN speech, demanding global support for an attack on a threatening, al-Qaeda aligned Iraq, in fact bombed. But more than that, key U.S. allies-NATO heavies France and Germany among them-refused to get on board the program. This occasioned an amazing campaign of vilification of France, best symbolized by Congress's decision to rename "French fries" "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. An asinine book trashing France as "our oldest enemy" became a best-seller.

    ... ... ...

    Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. All on the same page when it comes to maintaining what Wolfowitz termed "full-spectrum dominance" in the post-Cold War world. Now as it all falls apart-as ISIL expands its "caliphate," as the Syrian Baathists hold out against both U.S.-backed and other Islamists, as Iran gains respect as a serious negotiator in the Geneva talks, as China rises, as Russia thwarts NATO expansion, as U.S.-Israeli ties fray, as a multi-polar world inevitably emerges- what triumphs can the neocons claim?

    Once flushed with history, proclaiming the "end of history" with the triumph of capitalist imperialism over Marxist socialism and other competing ideologies, they have only a handful of successes they can claim.

    Oilmen Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and Rice who has an oil tanker named after her) lusted after oil profits. They lusted too for an expansion of U.S. military power in the "Greater Middle East." They were less concerned with Israel. But Israel's survival as a specifically "Jewish" state, with a subject Arab population that must never become demographically threatening-and blow the whole Zionist project by forcing a one-state multi-ethnic solution-is the central neocon concern. They will not say this, of course; Leo Strauss students like Wolfowitz and Shulsky believe in the need for deception to get things done. But this was the minimal objective of the neocons' response to 9/11: to use the event to advantage Israel.

    Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject.

    The real issue, they now averred, was creating "democracy" in the Middle East. Condi Rice happily connived with this strategy, arguing dramatically that it was as wrong to deny people in the Middle East their freedom as it had been to deny black people in her home of Birmingham, Alabama their right to vote. Suddenly special diplomats were dispatched to Arab countries to lecture skeptical, sometimes glowering audiences on the advantages of the U.S. political system.

    Under great pressure, some Arab countries somewhat expanded their parliamentary processes. The effort backfired as Islamists were elected in Egypt, Hizbollah made advances in Lebanon, and Hamas won a majority in the first free Palestinian election (in 2006). The "terrorists" were winning elections! The State Department denounced such results and has since shut up about "democracy" in the Middle East.

    No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with?

    A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was.

    But Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't see it that way. He has repeatedly dubbed Iran as a greater threat than ISIL. Having predicted since 1992 that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb; having repeatedly demanded (echoed by prominent U.S. neocons such as Norman Podhoretz) that the U.S. bomb Iran (to prevent a "nuclear holocaust"); having angrily dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu wants Obama to focus on destroying the Iranian regime.

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Neoconservatives as neoliberals with a gun

    Notable quotes:
    "... In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups. ..."
    "... They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone. Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism. ..."
    "... The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that. ..."
    "... As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a cabal (a word with an interesting etymology). ..."
    "... That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    R Walter, 02/03/2016 at 6:43 pm
    Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement. Whether is has been bad or good, hard to know. A little bit and a good read about the neoconservatives and Leo Strauss:

    "Neoconservatives hold the view that 'American' is the best bet for the world – America's institutional set-up is a very useful combination of modern elements, having to do with the sovereignty of individuals together with the older idea of a substantial role for government – and that this is an idea that needs to be widely promulgated. Indeed, without its promulgation there can arise and persist major threats to the countries which do embrace this set up, such as the United States of America. In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups.

    Now let us return to Strauss. Recall his prudential endorsement of classical liberalism as the best bet for philosophy. (Just exactly why philosophy ought to be cherished is not made clear by Strauss & Co; and their implicit or explicit nihilism calls the merit of philosophy into serious question.) Strauss's embrace of classical liberalism – or at least a watered down version of it, as per liberal democracy – did appear to influence the neocons. They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss & Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad."

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Leo_Strauss_Neoconservative

    For what it's worth.

    likbez, 02/03/2016 at 7:16 pm
    "Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement."

    No. They follow the philosophy of Leo Trotsky with "proletariat" replaced by "international elite" and global corporations.
    http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/neocons.shtml

    Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into "You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone." Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism.

    Using deception as a smoke screen in politics was actually introduced by Machiavelli, not by Leo Strauss; that's why Bush II administration was called Mayberry Machiavelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_Machiavelli)

    What Leo Strauss introduced and what is used in neoconservative/neoliberal discourse is the concept of "noble lie" (which includes "false flag" operations; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag). Here is how Professor of History at Tufts University Gary Leupp defines their behavior:

    == quote ==
    Hersh notes the critical influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss (d. 1973) on Wolfowitz's thinking. His article stimulated, among other articles, a substantial piece on Strauss by Jeet Heer in the Boston Globe (May 11), and another by William Pfaff in the International Herald Tribune (May 15), the latter noting that "Strauss's thought is a matter of public interest because his followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Strauss, of German Jewish origins who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, mentoring Wolfowitz among others, was a brilliant man. No question about that. But also a man profoundly hostile to the modern world and to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right of the wise and strong to lead societies to the fulfillment of their wise aims, using subterfuge when necessary, because speaking the naked truth won't get the job done.

    Strauss's point of departure is Socrates, who in Plato's Republic denounces Athenian democracy (the rule of the untutored masses) and instead promotes government by "philosopher-kings." Strauss had experienced the Weimar Republic (one of the more democratic experiments in modern history) and seen Germany fall into the hands of the Nazis. He understandably opposed the latter, but he derived some lessons from their methodology.

    The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that.

    As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a "cabal" (a word with an interesting etymology).

    They have contempt for the masses, and feel utterly justified in wisely misleading those masses into a roadmap for global peace on their terms. That meant, initially, using 9-11 to produce support for the seizure of Iraq,

    That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons' misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. The latter might be provoked by the fact that persons inclined to embrace the most extreme factions in the Israeli political apparatus are disproportionately represented in the neocons' cabal, and while the general movement of U.S. foreign policy is driven by broad geopolitical concerns, rather than the alliance with Israel, the neocons' allegiance to what they perceive to be the interests of Sharon's Israel is highly conspicuous.
    == end of quote ==

    See also

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/the-gloating-of-the-neocons/

    [Jan 31, 2016] Jesses Café Américain Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
    "... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"

    ― Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    "Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.

    But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Princeton 2014

    "As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.

    But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink, the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive.

    As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'"

    Mike Lofgren

    [Jan 31, 2016] Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Congressional Record ..."
    "... Federal Register ..."
    "... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
    "... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
    "... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
    "... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
    "... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
    "... Who rules America? ..."
    "... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
    "... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
    "... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
    "... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
    "... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
    "... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
    "... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
    "... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
    "... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency" away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime to emerge from the shadows.

    As unnerving as that prospect may be, however, it is the second shadow government, what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as " the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power ," that poses the greater threat right now.

    Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?

    The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes to " another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose."

    This " state within a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day," says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."

    Rather, Lofgren continues:

    It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.

    All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.

    The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.

    In an expose titled " Top Secret America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    Reporting on the Post's findings, Lofgren points out :

    These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to congressional hearings…

    The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.

    As Lofgren concludes:

    [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change … If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

    Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow governments.

    seek

    25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase, and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric utilities.

    There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates" and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.

    I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.

    The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals would amount to more than a couple thousand.

    SHRAGS Sun, 01/31/2016 - 02:07

    Namebase is still there: http://www.namebase.org/n2search.html

    Here's the interlocking directorship shortlist: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power_elite/interlocks_and_interact...

    JustObserving

    The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.

    The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.

    The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)."

    The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html

    Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

    There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    Who rules America?

    The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

    Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Niall Of The Ni...

    The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.

    besnook

    it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem.

    bunnyswanson

    UC Davis Professor Hamamoto Exposes the NWO

    "The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors of empire.'

    "That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families."

    "Now here is some meat:

    ""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea, and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation. The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual, scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."

    http://www.evilyoshida.com/thread-7197.html

    MASTER OF UNIVERSE

    UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS, plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.

    wankers all.

    James TraffiCan't

    Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt

    Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
    Father Thyme

    A History of Bad Men.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=oolwsWexSzQ

    flyonmywall

    So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.

    Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA.

    The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries. 41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA. More to come for sure.

    Faeriedust

    " The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot of them in any particular area.

    Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.

    Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world.

    [Jan 30, 2016] Venezuela is on the brink of a complete economic collapse

    Notable quotes:
    "... First is the price of tar sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that cant be cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction. ..."
    "... When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy. ..."
    "... So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. ..."
    "... The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world. ..."
    "... Venezuelas problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger did in Allendes Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela. The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help. ..."
    www.washingtonpost.com

    The Washington Post

    Venezuela's extra-heavy crude needs to be blended or refined - neither of which is cheap - before it can be sold. So Venezuela just hasn't been able to churn out as much oil as it used to without upgraded or even maintained infrastructure. Specifically, oil production fell 25 percent between 1999 and 2013.

    The rest is a familiar tale of fiscal woe. Even triple-digit oil prices, as Justin Fox points out, weren't enough to keep Venezuela out of the red when it was spending more on its people but producing less crude.

    billwilson18041 , 11:57 AM EST

    It would be good to think of a few positives and perspective. First is the price of tar sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that can't be cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction.

    When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy.

    So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. God forbid the right and left sit down and cooperate for a better country or at least that will be the call of the God and guns here

    elize88 , 11:49 AM EST

    Most Americans have no clue about Venezuela, or Venezuelans. We see the world through our narrow focus. The reason why we try to solve problems through our military, only, is that we think the world so much wants to be like us, and would just give their lives to be like us.

    No...the world wants to be left alone to live the way they see fit. We can't stand the fact that we are not the savior of the world. Our leaders do stupid things for all the wrong reasons, simply because, they like us, are ignorant of the rest of the world.

    JoeCit, 11:47 AM EST

    This 'fine' unbiased 'journalist' made the following statement, and in journalistic terms such statements should be backed up with 'facts', of which I see no evidence of: "The first step was when Hugo Chávez's socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything from two-cent gasoline to free housing. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's a good idea in general - but only as long as you actually, well, have the money to spend. And by 2005 or so, Venezuela didn't."

    I will 'editorialize' that handouts only 'work' when such giving doesn't make them lazy and entitlement-oriented, and doesn't end in a permanent state of expectation.

    I think this 'article' should be, at best, considered a (biased) opinion piece. Shame on you Washington Post.

    elize88, 11:26 AM EST [Edited]

    The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world.

    Venezuela's problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger did in Allende's Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela. The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help.

    ThomasFiore, 11:38 AM EST

    They tried to cut the wages of people in their oil sector below the prevailing wage in the rest of the world. The people left.

    Back under Bush I remember Condi Rice trying to support the military government after an attempted coup and that's our bad but that was the military intelligence side and not State. Venezuela has worked to make itself an enemy to the US in the same way that Castro did with Cuba (the politics of the Cold War don't work as well now that it's over so that hasn't really worked), but their problems are their own and not our fault. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming decade since they have aligned themselves with China and China seems to be turning inward.

    elize88, 11:14 AM EST

    Perhaps we need to travel a bit outside our little cocoon and see how others live. We think that the rest of the world do think like us and share our cultural value. No...the world does not consist of a monolithic thinking. That is our problem.

    I travel quite a bit and see the emphasis on different culture values. Venezuelans or Latin Americans may want the same "material" things as Americans, but the whole premise that of achieving those goals may not be as a premium in their lives.

    Get out into the world sometimes. Staying in a protective resort will not get you the understanding you need.

    Philosphical , 11:12 AM EST [Edited]

    Socialists, socialists, it's all socialists. The USA is more likely to go bankrupt than socialist Europe. We have the same or similar government expenditures as these terrible socialists, but our politicians won't face reality and collect the taxes to pay for what they have to spend to maintain our country and its people. We just have a lot more ability to borrow than Venezuela, but it can't go on indefinitely, sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning for us. Of course, the 1 per cent of I per cent who are paying our politicians will be largely unaffected by that day of reckoning.

    CapnRusty , 11:26 AM EST

    The Federal Reserve "printed" trillions over the past seven years. The difference is that most of that money went into our stock market, and caused the income disparity in America to grow.

    Epaminondas Vindictor, 10:00 AM EST

    Yeah, we know - socialism doesn't work. But having a welfare state, if managed fairly well does work. We only need to look to Canada as a nearby example.

    Yet Canada is not Cuba or Venezuela. And if you believe that Canadians are just itching to ditch their health care system, look again. Even the previous conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, tried to privatize their health care system. No country wants a health care system like that in the USA.

    The 'free market' is not necessarily a competitive one. In the USA, it's more about plutocracy.

    Facing Bosnian Sniper Fire, 10:05 AM EST

    Good point! I don't want obamacare either!

    bromisky, 10:11 AM EST

    Remember, what you call Obamacare came from the Heritage Foundation...a conservative think tank...

    Tim the Enforcer, 1/29/2016 12:59 PM EST

    Lemme guess: "Real socialism wasn't tried in Venezuela."

    God Loves Me Best, 11:03 AM EST

    Lemme guess: "Real capitalism didn't lead to the Great Depression, the Bush Recession, or any of the dozen or so major "panics" in U.S. economic history."

    Jessica20151, 1/29/2016 12:48 PM EST

    My only guess is that Matt O'Brien has never been out from his day time job at the Washington Post, typing stuff on his laptop computer he doesn't know, because he has never been to Venezuela.

    My brother is an Engineer at British Petroleum at Valencia, Venezuela and I just came from vacations from Venezuela, I found everything at the supermarkets, including a bottle of Scotch Whiskey imported from England. My brother just purchased a brand new venezuelan built Toyota "machito" for just $5,000 dollars. And people in Venezuela enjoys free public transportation, free hospitals, free health care system, free medicines, free doctors, free dentists, elderly people and students don't need to pay a single cent to ride the Valencia Subway or the Caracas Subway (Metro). And people are employed, the unemployment rate in Venezuela is 2%. The economy is doing fine, I have seen more people dragging carts full of trash and begging for money in the streets of Washington DC than in Caracas. And please, stop watching FoxLiesNews.

    [Jan 29, 2016] US government finds top secret information in Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
    "... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
    "... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
    "... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
    "... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
    "... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
    "... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
    "... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
    "... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
    "... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
    "... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
    "... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
    "... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
    "... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
    "... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
    "... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
    "... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
    "... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
    "... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
    "... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
    "... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Obama administration confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.


    jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04

    Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.

    And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.

    Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46

    And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.

    There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up the bill?

    And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...

    Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29

    In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa) and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000 g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's gone on here...

    Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23

    SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .


    Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17

    She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating her unfitness.


    eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15

    Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

    since when has ignorance been a defence?


    nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05

    Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.


    Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18

    Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:

    "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

    She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So already some Clinton-esque word parsing

    And then what people said who used to do her job:

    fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
    "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security."

    It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked or not."

    Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet...

    beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08

    Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.

    Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07

    The Secretary of State is an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.

    Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00

    The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.

    The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their chances.

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57

    In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code.

    According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.

    According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information " with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up to a year in prison.

    The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."

    According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience."

    Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects."

    As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."

    kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54

    I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...

    Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53

    Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........


    PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44

    Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.


    USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41

    Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?

    We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does. I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.

    Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.


    Raleighchopper Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:40

    far Left sites like the Guardian:

    LMAOROFL
    Scott Trust Ltd board
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

    FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36

    Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.


    MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28

    The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.

    The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law, though we set that precedent long ago.


    makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08

    What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?

    Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.


    Raleighchopper -> Popeia 29 Jan 2016 20:05

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326


    Rowan Walters 29 Jan 2016 19:51

    Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.

    As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.

    The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.

    Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.

    Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?

    It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).

    And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
    There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.

    I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.


    seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37

    Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and gave it to foreign nationals.
    Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured private network.


    dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28

    Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

    Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information, the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access program clearance to go with it.

    For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.

    Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this.

    What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'

    That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to ensure it's protected from further disclosure.

    Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.

    (Sorry for the length of the post)


    Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22

    yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.

    Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here


    chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18

    The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature was constant.

    If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone classified or special access traffic.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05

    Give it up.

    She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether or not it has been recently classified appropriately.


    chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism
    29 Jan 2016 19:04

    18USC Section793(f)

    $250,000 and ten years.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00

    False.

    Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.

    dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58

    You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently, they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries. And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.

    fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46

    She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.


    Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45

    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

    21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.

    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.

    24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

    26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.

    27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988

    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner ruled death due to suicide)

    32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes"?

    33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

    34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
    36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan

    And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!


    Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42

    THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .

    Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.

    3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported to have been having an affair with Hillary.

    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.

    5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".

    7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.

    11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancée.

    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.

    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.

    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)

    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

    Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41

    Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.

    Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35

    Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.

    Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.

    RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33

    Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing) in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through because of Who She Is?

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32

    Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain no government records.

    Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter. Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on your server.

    Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years. Thats a huge violation.

    Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't give me a lot of confidence.

    Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.


    Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10

    Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?

    MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07

    Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them and never allowed ANY to be seen.

    Typical GOP

    Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
    4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.

    OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53

    Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability.

    Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.

    Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity."

    You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..

    Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.

    Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.

    This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also investigating.


    HiramsMaxim -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    OurNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:42

    This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements.

    At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.

    If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign state.

    This is actually a huge story.


    TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?

    Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --

    Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.


    HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission,

    Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton.

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    beneboy303 -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 17:18

    If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !


    In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15

    Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.


    dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09

    Irrelevant?

    Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.

    And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.

    She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00

    It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel".

    DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

    Bob Sheerin 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server. Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others -- been released late on a Friday.

    It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain.

    [Jan 27, 2016] The Implications of Foreign Minister Lavrovs Snub of Victoria Nuland

    naked capitalism
    timbers, January 27, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "…the US need not push Russia into a corner, market forces are doing that work far more efficiently."

    I think you're confusing markets with the US government.

    It is the fall in the price of oil in part caused by political decisions, and partly Obama's illegal economic sanctions on Russia and US lies and propaganda and regime change directed at Russia that are "efficiently" doing what they're doing.

    Would be very surprised if Washington is successful with any of it's "market forces" regarding Russia because Russia knows if it loses this matchup in Syria and retreats, the part that comes next is it Uncle Sam funding ISIS like terrorists on Russian soil instead of Syria as it is now. And if Russia can free itself of Western economic orthodoxy and dump the dollar, it will never fear a falling Rubble so much ever again. Lets hope Putin orders a moving away of short term Russian dollar holdings, so that a deliberate Russian default sees the West lose more in lost Russian payments than it can seize in Russian assets held in their countries.

    Then who would "market forces be efficiently working for"?

    In broad simplified stroke, Russia is fighting on the side of the angels and US is the Darth Vader of the world. The U.N. has said we have the biggest refugee crisis since WWII and the refugees are all coming from nations the US is or has done regime change in. Aside for this meaning Obama is directly responsible for the suffering if tens of millions of families and deaths of hundreds of thousands, it also is producing maybe dangerous right wing political reactions in Europe.

    The Russians are smart enough to know the difference between economic sanctions and military threats and US funded/promoted terrorism. I've watched their actions long enough to trust them to make sound, intelligent responses (though was disappointed Lavrov agreed to allow Obama&Co funded Al-qaeda like terrorists to be included as legitimate political opponents of Assad in the peace talks).

    hidflect, January 27, 2016 at 6:56 am

    Why the hell should he shake her hand? She's an ideological, irrational hate-monger who despises Russia. Kerry was an ass for bringing her along.

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Kerry was probably disciplining her or rehabilitating her; there musts be a tempered new consensus at State. You're coming with me Vicki and you are going to behave like a rational, sincere diplomat because you've got some big fences to mend.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has soufght to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Correcting and adding:

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has sought to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking. (I could care less about the shaking or not shaking. Nuland's presence is a sign of disrespect to Russia and the Russians know that perfectly well. This post is needed and excellent.)

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I think her presence and her humiliation (notice Kerry left the room) are the equivalent of an apology to Lavrov and Russia for her dingbat, destructive role in Ukraine.

    McKillop, January 27, 2016 at 10:55 am

    If Nuland and her posse are as instrumental in the devastation brought to Ukraine as reported then I think she deserves a damned good shaking.

    RUKidding, January 27, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Interesting, thanks. I think the article is worthy. I certainly could not blame Lavrov for snubbing this horrid excuse for a human being. The Kaganate of Nuland represents a portion of Obama's foreign policy and reflects what will be ahead should HRC win the election. The entire Kagan family should not be hired to do this work on behalf of "We the People," but there they are… doing their evil thing.

    oho, January 27, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Bill Kristol and David Brooks cries out wondering where all the conservatives have gone?

    The answer is right there….Nuland, Kristol and Co. have driven the GOP base who are even mildly aware of foreign affairs to Trump's camp.

    Gaylord, January 27, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Nuland was not even appropriately dressed for a diplomatic meeting IMO.

    shinola, January 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    I guess I'll never be a diplomat.

    I would have spit on her (& I'm Amurkin)

    Wat, January 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Perhaps Nuland thought Lavrov was a subject of some kind. She's probably too arrogant and stupid to figure it out, but she has now encountered a legitimate opponent. When the day of reckoning comes for her, she may learn what responsibility is.

    [Jan 25, 2016] Congress is Writing the President a Blank Check for War by Ron Pau

    Notable quotes:
    "... The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish. ..."
    "... The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. ..."
    "... President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. ..."
    "... Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. ..."
    "... Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law. ..."
    "... At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy? ..."
    "... The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war. ..."
    January 24, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

    The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.

    President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.

    It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.

    The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?

    The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

    Let's be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Jan 24, 2016] I Ramped Up My Internet Security, and You Should Too by Julia Angwin

    Actually you should use separate PC for you banking transaction and taxes. this can be older PC or a cheap laptop bought specifically for this purpose, or at least a VM. But it should be a separate operating system from OS that you use to browse internet. Doing such things on Pc you use for regular internet browsing is playing with fire.
    Notable quotes:
    "... mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important ..."
    "... if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence ..."
    "... one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open ..."
    "... The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X ..."
    "... We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption. ..."
    Jan. 20, 2016 | ProPublica

    Next up is ditching old, unused or poorly maintained software. Using software is a commitment. If you don't update it, you are wearing a "hack me" sign on your forehead. So if there are programs or apps that you don't use, delete them.

    This year, I decided to ditch my instant messaging client Adium. I was using it to enable encrypted chats. But like many cash-strapped open source projects, it is rarely updated and has been linked to many security vulnerabilities.

    m krosse, 4 days ago
    mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email & financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important

    if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence

    Fred Garven

    one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open (actually you should have a separate Pc for such transactions, or at least a VM -- NNB) the only item running on your PC at the time no other software or open web page should be running, because those other open software can possible view your account info.
    gilbert satchell , 4 days ago
    The greatest thing I did to upgrade my security was to dump anything and everything related to apple. Moved on over to open source Linux Mint and yes, I still use Tor.
    JV -> gilbert satchell, 4 days ago
    The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X: http://www.cvedetails.com/top-...

    Jonathan

    So for Mr & Ms Average Internet user you are going to suggest they switch to Tor and the dark web? Before they worry about password security? Perhaps for a journalist anonymity is paramount but most folks are only going to expose themselves to even more malware down that path. Better to suggest that users switch to a browser that autoupdates itself and install the HTTPS Everywhere plugin. We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption.

    Gordon Bartlett

    Sorry, but it's not clear what you mean by "updating your software." Try giving specific examples of, say, what a person running Windows on their PC or Android on their mobile phone would do on their own to upgrade, assuming, as you do, that the patches we periodically receive from MSFT, etc. are inadequate.

    JSF

    I am a retired IT professional from a federal government agency. Most of our users who needed secure communication were rather techno phobic. Try Explaining public/private keys. I have tried some programs like signal, PGP etc. They all require the recipient to use the same software. Signal said "invite your contacts" I am pretty sure any one getting this invite would consider it spam, pfishing or a virus.

    The sender might not know where the recipient is located. If the Corp locks their users machines it requires IT intervention to install anything which could be days or longer not really conducive to time sensitive information. We need to develop better technical solutions for people who are not tech savvy


    [Jan 20, 2016] Facebook the new social control paradigm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Filter Bubble ..."
    "... Facebook and Your Marriage ..."
    "... In a presentation titled Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying. ..."
    "... Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include: ..."
    "... Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook; ..."
    "... Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence; ..."
    "... Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who overdose in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games; ..."
    "... Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period; ..."
    "... Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    We ARE what we THINK - not what we look at, or what we look like, or what we think we look like. In fact, the visual cortex can be highly deceptive when it comes to the functioning of the brain. Optical illusions exploit this brain trick.

    Most practically, overloading of the visual cortex reduces higher brain function to nearly zero. It's a very subtle process, not understood by many TV watchers. TV makes you stupid by overloading your visual cortex, at a certain Hz frequency, which affects your reptilian brain. This is why you get the munchies when you watch TV, or laugh without reason. Facebook is a lot more effective at this because the associations are stronger (i.e. your friends) and it's interactive - making the users feel as if they are controlling their reality.

    The fact is that users are not controlling Facebook - Facebook is controlling you. They have set the stage which is limited, and allow users few useful tools to manage this barrage on your mind. The only way to really stop this invasive virus from spreading: turn it off!

    Reasons to delete your Facebook:

    No one can argue that Facebook has provided families with means of keeping in touch at long distances. Many grandparents wouldn't otherwise see photos of their growing grandchildren. But there are hundreds of other social networks, private networks, and other methods, of doing the same thing - without all the 'crap' that comes with Facebook. Remember the days when we would email photos to each other? We'd spend time even cropping photos and choosing the best one. Now, users on Facebook will even snap away photos of their daily dinner, or inform the world that they forgot to wash their socks. Facebook users who engage in the practice of 'wall scanning' have little room in their brains for anything else.

    Children are also a consideration with Facebook. Web Filters actually block facebook the same way they block other illicit sites. Parents can probably relate to this article more than the average user. Average users have accepted spam crap as part of life. It's in our mailboxes, it's on billboards on our highways, it's everywhere. But really - it's not!

    Facebook has been banned in corporate networks, government offices, schools, universities, and other institutions. Workers at times would literally spend all day posting and reading Facebook. It's as useless as TV - but much more addicting. From Psychology Today:

    Below we review some research suggesting 7 ways that Facebook may be hurting you.

    1. It can make you feel like your life isn't as cool as everyone else's. Social psychologist Leon Festinger observed that people are naturally inclined to engage in social comparison. To answer a question like "Am I doing better or worse than average?" you need to check out other people like you. Facebook is a quick, effortless way to engage in social comparison, but with even one glance through your News Feed you might see pictures of your friends enjoying a mouth-watering dinner at Chez Panisse, or perhaps winning the Professor of the Year award at Yale University. Indeed, a study by Chou and Edge (2012) found that chronic Facebook users tend to think that other people lead happier lives than their own, leading them to feel that life is less fair.
    2. It can lead you to envy your friends' successes. Did cousin Annabelle announce a nice new promotion last month, a new car last week, and send a photo from her cruise vacation to Aruba this morning? Not only can Facebook make you feel like you aren't sharing in your friends' happiness, but it can also make you feel envious of their happy lives. Buxmann and Krasnova (2013) have found that seeing others' highlights on your News Feed can make you envious of friends' travels, successes, and appearances. Additional findings suggest that the negative psychological impact of passively following others on Facebook is driven by the feelings of envy that stem from passively skimming your News Feed.
    3. It can lead to a sense of false consensus. Sit next to a friend while you each search for the same thing on Google. Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble (2012), can promise you won't see the same search results. Not only have your Internet searches grown more personalized, so have social networking sites. Facebook's sorting function places posts higher in your News Feed if they're from like-minded friends-which may distort your view of the world (Constine, 2012). This can lead you to believe that your favorite political candidate is a shoe-in for the upcoming election, even though many of your friends are saying otherwise…you just won't hear them.
    4. It can keep you in touch with people you'd really rather forget. Want to know what your ex is up to? You can…and that might not be a good thing.Facebook stalking has made it harder to let go of past relationships. Does she seem as miserable as I am? Is that ambiguous post directed at me? Has she started datingthat guy from trivia night? These questions might better remain unanswered; indeed, Marshall (2012) found that Facebook users who reported visiting their former partner's page experienced disrupted post-breakup emotional recovery and higher levels of distress. Even if you still run into your ex in daily life, the effects of online surveillance were significantly worse than those of offline contact.
    5. It can make you jealous of your current partner. Facebook stalking doesn't only apply to your ex. Who is this Stacy LaRue, and why is she constantly "liking" my husband's Facebook posts? Krafsky and Krafsky, authors of Facebook and YourMarriage (2010), address many common concerns in relationships that stem from Facebook use. "Checking up on" your partner's page can often lead to jealousy and even unwarranted suspicion, particularly if your husband's exes frequently come into the picture. Krafsky and Krafsky recommend talking with your partner about behaviors that you both consider safe and trustworthy on Facebook, and setting boundaries where you don't feel comfortable.
    6. It can reveal information you might not want to share with potential employers. Do you really want a potential employer to know about how drunk you got at last week's kegger…or the interesting wild night that followed with the girl in the blue bikini? Peluchette and Karl (2010) found that 40% of users mention alcoholuse on their Facebook page, and 20% mention sexual activities. We often think these posts are safe from prying eyes, but that might not be the case. While 89% of jobseekers use social networking sites, 37% of potential employers do, as well-and are actively looking into their potential hires (Smith, 2013). If you're on the job market, make sure to check your privacy settings and restrict any risqué content to "Friends Only", if you don't wish to delete it entirely.
    7. It can become addictive. Think society's most common addictive substances are coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol? Think again. The DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) includes a new diagnosis that has stirred controversy: a series of items gauging Internet Addiction. Since then, Facebook addiction has gathered attention from both popular media and empirical journals, leading to the creation of a Facebook addiction scale (Paddock, 2012; see below for items). To explore the seriousness of this addiction, Hofmann and colleagues (2012) randomly texted participants over the course of a week to ask what they most desired at that particular moment. They found that among their participants, social media use was craved even more than tobacco and alcohol.

    Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids

    The highlights of a Facebook study via endgadget article:

    In a presentation titled "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids" at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying.

    Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include:

    Facebook will cause lower grades for students, but it's OK for adults? hmm...

    Facebook (FB) Investment Advice

    It's just a matter of time when this will result in a major scandal, FB stock will crash, and class action investigations will pile up. Lawyers will have to hire companies that automate workflow just to deal with the huge amount of securities class action settlements for this case. The Facebook (FB) IPO disaster was a telling sign about this issue. Sell it, block it, delete it, disgard it. Facebook is a bunch of trash. There's no technology behind it. There are a huge amount of struggling companies that have developed really ground breaking technology that will change the life of humans on this planet earth. Facebook (FB) is not one of those companies. Facebook (FB) is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a liability. And it's unsolveable.

    Delete your Facebook account, sell your Facebook stock if you have it - it's guaranteed that by doing so, you can grow your portfolio, increase your IQ and overall well being. Save your business, save your family, save your life - and delete this virus!

    [Jan 18, 2016] US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed others - foreign policy expert by William Blum

    Looks like Iran if far from safe even after sanctions were lifted...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The idea that were the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They dont argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, theyll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. ..."
    "... NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, theres no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, theres no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesnt matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone whos not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. ..."
    "... Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washingtons policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. Thats all it takes: you dont admire us and have military force – thats all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. ..."
    "... Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – thats fine. If they cant, theyll use war. Its that simple. ..."
    "... They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You cant just look at today and say "theyre not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. ..."
    "... The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then its been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. Theres no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? ..."
    "... Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, thats the problem. When they start to use force, theres no holding them back, and they dont care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. ..."
    Apr 17 , 2015 | RT - SophieCo

    Obama's time as leader of the US is coming to an end - his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it's okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today.

    Sophie Shevardnadze :William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers like "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export", welcome to the show, it's great to have you with us. Now, Hillary Clinton has announced she's running to become the Democrats' presidential candidate; Jeb Bush is also likely to put his bit forward for the Republicans. Now, Bush, Clinton – we've been here before. Who would be better candidate do you think? Not just for the U.S., but also for the world, like, global peace efforts, for instance?

    William Blum: I don't think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change... I can add Obama to that. It wouldn't even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy.

    SS: Why do you think it's the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other?

    WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we're the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They don't argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they'll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination.

    SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not?

    WB: Because NATO shares America's desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there's no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there's no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn't matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who's not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not.

    SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this "domination" theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia's doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?

    WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire's expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire's expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I've named – from Cuba to Russia.

    SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies?

    WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They've used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they've supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there's no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S.

    SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. - the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long?

    WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington's policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That's all it takes: you don't admire us and have military force – that's all it takes to be an enemy of Washington.

    SS: The problem is, there's a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it's not the first such deployment we've seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?

    WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not...or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there's no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there's no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don't share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force.

    SS: So are you saying that America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I've said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America's involvement?

    WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that's fine. If they can't, they'll use war. It's that simple.

    SS: So, like you've said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there's also Estonia and they meet NATO's funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn't the alliance important to them as well?

    WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there's no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington's policies in Ukraine or elsewhere.

    SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there's Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?

    WB: They don't have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. - that doesn't make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don't believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There's no threat. If Russia doesn't announce Libya as a threat, it's not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it's because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination.

    SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It's not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right?

    WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can't put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it's very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems.

    SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it's not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately.

    WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can't just look at today and say "they're not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination.

    SS: Now, you've written in one of your books, the "Rogue State" that if you were President, you'd end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened.

    WB: If I were a President, yes, that's what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you've quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that's what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire's policies. But I would have great time for the first few days.

    SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread.

    WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it's been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There's no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now?

    SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.

    WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don't tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan.

    SS: You've also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I'm talking about right now, I am not talking about "if America hadn't invaded them back then". Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well?

    WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we've done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We've unleashed ISIS, and they're not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy.

    SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups?

    WB: Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that's the problem. When they start to use force, there's no holding them back, and they don't care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world.

    SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people's point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people's moods on the ground. So you're saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don't locals have control over their own direction at all?

    WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it's too late. They can't do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it's too late now. I don't know what to say, what will save the world now.

    SS: You've mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba's President Raul Castro, also Obama's meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies?

    WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I'm very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don't think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can't apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he's saying now may have to do with his so-called "legacy". He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don't know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he's saying these things – but they don't mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever.

    SS: So you're saying there's really no substance in those meetings... Now, looking back, what would you call Obama's biggest achievements of his two terms - I mean, people say there's been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there's an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn't move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that?

    WB: Yes, all of that. There's no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn't move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about "it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that's not going to happen" he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said "Oh really? We'll arrange that" - and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you've mentioned. There's no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I've mentioned before, they are bombing Syria's military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape.

    SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export" discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

    [Jan 16, 2016] Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam

    Notable quotes:
    "... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
    "... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
    "... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
    "... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    puppetlife -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 10:01:00

    Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this. Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.

    Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however..

    ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:38:06

    We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a supporter for just 50 pounds per year.

    WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.

    I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.

    THIS is WHY I use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic videos and other tactics is not advertising.

    It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the nerve.

    Leeblue -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 09:05:47
    Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.

    Another thing is the ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.

    It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.

    [Jan 16, 2016] Ellen Meiksins Wood, 1942-2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. ..."
    "... Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenners theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. ..."
    "... Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). ..."
    "... But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, heres what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: surplus extraction is purely economic, achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely economic COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production. ..."
    "... Corey, lets define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on economic COERCIONS . Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from force , defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way. ..."
    "... So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism. ..."
    "... coerced in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) primitive accumulation. ..."
    "... found The Politics of Capitalism (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. ..."
    January 14, 2016 | Crooked Timber

    I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood's work late in life. I had known about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist, who was constantly urging me to read Wood's work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman​. I read her The Origins of Capitalism . It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak-not to just to me but to many others-at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward. Just last week, I had started reading Citizens to Lords , and I'd been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person. Now she's gone . The work continues. 1

    Chris Bertram, 01.14.16 at 7:54 pm 2

    I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen's somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she'd probably have said "political") constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from "paleo-Marxism" (by which they meant Ellen) or from "Croatian nationalism" (by which they meant Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen basically wrote the statement here:

    http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=17413

    I last saw her at an Oxford Political Thought conference a few years back and we had a friendly chat.

    Paul 01.14.16 at 9:06 pm 4

    " I read her The Origins of Capitalism. It was one of those Aha! moments "

    Same here, amazing book. Everyone should read it. What a loss…

    Gary Othic 01.14.16 at 9:38 pm 5

    Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies. Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…

    'The Origins of Capitalism' was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner's work, and the debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another piece that I really liked.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm

    @1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management, the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.

    Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy's Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster's leadership decided to return to Sweezy's economics rather than Robert Brenner's, which Wood had been defending during her time at the helm.

    For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. This applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations and wage repression.

    For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner's theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched by Brenner's work and Wood's critical defense of it.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:02 pm 6

    Robin: "She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."

    This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries. Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson, Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:06 pm 7

    I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the "force" of economic competition in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.

    Corey Robin 01.15.16 at 2:17 am 10

    Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I'm not sure I really understand your comments, but to the extent that I do, you're wrong that Wood didn't think force, both political and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it's that unlike feudalism, the moment of appropriation of the workers' surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, here's what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: "surplus extraction is purely 'economic', achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely 'economic' COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production." (Origins of Capitalism, 56)

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 3:43 am 11

    Corey, let's define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS". Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from "force", defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way.

    You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on "the appropriation of surplus" being "separate from the moment of coercion."

    One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS".

    What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood's focus; her differentia specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.

    Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit, and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).

    Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.

    So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.

    Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France) but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe). Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity growth and capital accumulation.

    This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.

    But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:01 am 12

    Robin writes: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."
    Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.

    1. What do you mean by force?
    2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
    3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me, yes.
    4. Does "force" include for you "'Economic' coercions"? For me, no.
    5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
    6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
    7. Do you agree with Wood's explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.

    Chris Bertram 01.15.16 at 7:45 am 13

    @RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism. Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but that doesn't necessarily make her wrong about history.

    jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm 16

    Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating "force" and "coercion" is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much "force" as it is "coercion". Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus, if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution. Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.

    LFC 01.15.16 at 3:41 pm 17

    The basic 'model' or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly) is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are 'forced' to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10 thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own means of production) are 'coerced' in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) 'primitive accumulation'. The historical accuracy of this is a separate question; but it's what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)

    Anarcissie 01.15.16 at 4:12 pm 18

    Not having read Wood's works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately found 'The Politics of Capitalism' (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and 'market socialism' than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:16 pm 19

    In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being "forced" to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more concerned about the how English tenant famers' dependence on the market for agricultural leases and inputs (including labor power) "forces" them to recover their costs through the market and thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.

    Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated via market activity.

    And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate a surplus.

    For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how capitalism really does depend on force.

    In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.

    Here are some problems with the story.

    On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for the new industries.

    It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization, and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England as Wood did.

    Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and "exorbitant" wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.

    Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 7:16 pm 23

    Here is Robin again: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."

    Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have "coercion" and then the two forms of coercion: "economic coercion" and "extra-economic coercion" or "force". Coercion that operates through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.

    To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism, Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is summarizing her.

    The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle in the English countryside in Wood's account which is basically Brenner's simplified; after that, force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.

    The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early landless proletariat is basically also ignored.

    It's highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is based on force.

    Plume 01.15.16 at 10:01 pm 27

    Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear, and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.

    Pair it with Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism , and you've got a highly accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism - what it does, where it came from - and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.

    Again, sad news.

    phenomenal cat 01.16.16 at 7:31 pm 34

    "Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern, and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations." Neville Morley @ 30

    Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the axes you're grinding?

    [Jan 16, 2016] Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Discussion

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100 a barrel. ..."
    "... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that was for frozen by US banks . ..."
    "... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state. ..."
    "... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American buddies... ..."
    "... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
    "... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
    "... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
    "... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally, thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
    "... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil. ..."
    "... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for various goods. ..."
    "... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to addressing the situation. ..."
    "... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
    "... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing. ..."
    "... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy. ..."
    "... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west ..."
    "... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
    "... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
    "... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster for the House of Saud. ..."
    "... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
    "... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
    "... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance, cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
    "... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It seems not. ..."
    "... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
    "... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners, the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least. Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any other country. ..."
    "... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons. Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
    "... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us. It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
    "... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years without having a war with them ..."
    "... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
    "... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed millions of Iranians. ..."
    "... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
    "... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran out or start to build bridges. ..."
    "... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme. ..."
    "... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given it dysfunctional political system. ..."
    "... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
    "... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars. ..."
    "... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
    "... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
    "... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged in by interviews. ..."
    "... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans too. ..."
    "... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant to see it? ..."
    "... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
    "... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end ..."
    "... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries - as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
    "... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
    "... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
    "... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
    "... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
    "... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
    "... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is. No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
    "... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
    "... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
    "... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained a base. ..."
    Jan 16, 2016 | The Guardian
    chovil, 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100 a barrel.

    Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.

    Afshin Peyman -> MicheNorman , 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
    fatcontrol -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 16:33:47
    Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.

    LiviaDrusilla -> okonomiyaki, 2016-01-16 16:33:47

    A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric, and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years. However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of amounts to the same thing.
    optimist99 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:50:59
    "There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."

    For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made the process slightly slower - that's all

    Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up to then to help
    him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).

    The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started by then.
    No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...

    With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen. As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance to Lübeck..).

    Patrick Ryan, 2016-01-16 14:49:19
    Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American buddies...
    LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:37:08
    Former British ambassador to Tehran on Sky News. Amazingly enough, he's talking a lot of sense.
    Afshin Peyman -> mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:36:42
    Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.

    Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in sabotaging the agreement.

    Pete Salmond -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:35:27
    If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
    SundarIsaacs, 2016-01-16 14:34:21
    Cuba & Iran. Next Russia please. And then if possible impose sanctions on Israel, Turkey and KSA.
    pretzelattack -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:32:51
    i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
    Katrin3 -> Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 14:28:05
    They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably later today.

    Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.

    LiviaDrusilla -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:26:50
    Yes. It was on BBC. Apparently Kerry and Zarif had been locked in a room together - presumably discussing this.

    BTW Yankee propagandist on BBC right now, getting the soft soap treatment as always.

    Giulio Ongaro -> Phil Atkinson, 2016-01-16 14:21:43
    In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian airliner).

    And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy, but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.

    robinaldlowrise, 2016-01-16 14:20:18

    "It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy, not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important day," [Zarif] said.

    Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?

    mattijoon -> moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 14:19:23
    Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
    Katrin3 -> dothemaths, 2016-01-16 14:19:17
    No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
    LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:18:32
    BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago. However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that has been holding up the announcement.
    Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:18:17
    Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall. Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for various goods.
    mattijoon -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 14:17:10

    There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society and lives for the past 40 years.

    So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive to say at all?

    Katrin3 -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:17:01
    They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
    Stephen_Sean -> subtilesubversion, 2016-01-16 14:15:34
    The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they improve human rights and expect it to work.

    Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to addressing the situation.

    pretzelattack -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 14:13:49
    what appeasement? did they invade somebody?
    mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:13:35
    Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
    pretzelattack -> JulianHBurchill, 2016-01-16 14:13:09
    Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history of invading other countries. Iran, not.
    Katrin3 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:10:48
    Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens, they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
    TheDepotCat -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:08:05
    "But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...?? The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And it worked.
    Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:06:48
    Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly lists and such.....

    Yes, I know, not the world we live in. Not yet.

    Iaorana -> Katrin3, 2016-01-16 14:05:19
    Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:02:23

    But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either.

    Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could be seen as defensive actions by Iran.

    And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor.

    That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and create untenable nation states.

    whose problems you blame entirely on the west -

    No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.

    ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.

    I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had, you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani refugees.

    As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?

    You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?

    petermhogan -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:56:42
    The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
    timeforchange13 -> TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 13:55:22
    There are many aspects of the British regime that are even more disturbing
    petermhogan -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 13:53:25
    Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy. Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election. It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
    AgeingAlbion -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 13:53:22
    But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather than Gulf states or indeed Iran.

    As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?

    timeforchange13, 2016-01-16 13:51:49
    A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall for so long
    CTG2016, 2016-01-16 13:40:11
    Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.

    As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end of the dark night, there is light."

    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 13:36:11

    I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own devices.

    Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western 'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.

    I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous sectarian nonsense.

    And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos?

    AlatarielN, 2016-01-16 13:33:06
    Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run, regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
    Javafromjava -> SoxmisUK, 2016-01-16 13:31:02
    But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
    LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 13:31:02

    Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear exactly how to apportion credit.

    Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb, and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do with it. Really daft argument.

    I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts

    Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.

    other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.

    Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all (though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.

    DuneMessiah , 2016-01-16 13:10:39
    There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
    GregPlatt -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:06:32
    Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster for the House of Saud.

    If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected as US President.

    Phil Atkinson -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 13:03:46
    This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may say about it.

    The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!" to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria" from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people, they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It doesn't bear thinking about.

    On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.

    ID5955768, 2016-01-16 13:01:15
    I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices.
    moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 12:57:45
    Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It seems not.
    ham zed -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:53:05
    That is why Iran never trusts the US.
    TheSageofStockwell -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 12:50:26
    I can just imagine the skill, tact and diplomacy with which Trump or Cruz would approach this task...
    FatuousFeminist -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:45:49
    If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong.
    bcnteacher -> Michael House-Party Fleming, 2016-01-16 12:44:02
    I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
    Mike_UK -> TheDepotCat, 2016-01-16 12:38:23
    Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook and blogsville!
    LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:35:45
    Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers, so pathetic are their arguments.

    If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't? And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if it ever did).

    But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon. Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.

    TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 12:33:13
    Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship to them during his presidency.

    Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand off.

    LiviaDrusilla -> Mike_UK, 2016-01-16 12:27:16

    Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian Golf!

    That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.

    Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels 'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it, but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys' 11,500km away from their own territory.

    But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively, the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a later stage.

    For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest triumph of diplomacy in recent years.

    Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:26:24
    A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction, and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
    Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:25:03
    There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today.

    The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal with Iran.

    Vizzeh -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 12:20:43
    If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically. I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption, the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
    Vizzeh -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:18:14
    The Saudi's are being played too... (although they are corrupt as hell so who cares) Likely against each other.
    LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 12:16:16
    "Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate targets.

    Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech, then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress' of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?

    Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians? Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers on board?

    MGBrit -> hobot, 2016-01-16 12:11:53
    USA. They've been there for years with drones and bombings, I know.
    Babak Taurus ૐ, 2016-01-16 12:11:37
    Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
    Win-Win
    LiviaDrusilla -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 12:10:39
    Oh, OK, I getcha!

    I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.

    If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners, the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb. In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any other country.

    Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'. Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent) nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.

    So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy as the motivator.

    Vizzeh -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 12:03:49
    If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically, once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed into a war.

    I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.

    All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.

    AgeingAlbion -> nearfieldpro, 2016-01-16 12:03:26
    Iran spent years supplying IEDs to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
    OldSnort, 2016-01-16 11:58:51
    Better to jaw, jaw than to war, war.
    spotthelemon -> Zod Buster, 2016-01-16 11:56:51
    Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years without having a war with them
    Themediaspoonfedlad -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:55:48
    Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and has
    1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
    2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid in 1953.
    3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
    4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed millions of Iranians.
    5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.

    What on earth do we do now?

    MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 11:54:47
    If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran.
    Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 11:54:14
    4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead, to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now rejoice Iranian people. :-)
    Vizzeh -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:52:21

    The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media

    I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely but compartmentalized they seemingly do.

    I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow. Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out logically.

    However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear scale.

    Themediaspoonfedlad -> Philip Bissonnette, 2016-01-16 11:42:45
    I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used to attack it.

    Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working, Iran diversified its economy.

    It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran out or start to build bridges.

    I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should be safe for 50 or so more years.

    Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:39:05
    Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
    MrHumbug -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 11:33:27
    Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking US foreign policy in the post cold war period.

    The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played for patsy.

    Streatham -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 11:26:28

    President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.

    So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven years?

    According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W. Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes. Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

    The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-ordered-ten-times-more-drone-strikes-than-bush/5475415

    kevinusma -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 11:21:14
    I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear machine.

    http://www.thetravelsofkevin.com/american-travel-to-iran/

    Streatham -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 11:19:38

    Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going

    Ah, the West's colony in the Middle East.

    LiviaDrusilla -> John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:17:55
    Well, a low price is better than no price.

    And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the Gulf.

    BigJim1, 2016-01-16 11:16:50
    " there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot be fit for purpose.
    Alice38, 2016-01-16 11:15:41
    Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
    USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
    In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
    John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:14:12
    "Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"

    Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
    In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but at a very low price.

    Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 11:12:48
    This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf) or those who indeed are the aggressors....

    It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It is a chess board.

    Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 11:07:52
    Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in all these failed states.
    There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this century.

    May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment? You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or later, you will remember my words...

    budigunawan -> MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 11:06:48

    The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs.
    Vizzeh -> JohannesL, 2016-01-16 10:50:53
    Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....

    It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.

    It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.

    One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist

    - Ghandi
    copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:49:43
    Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
    PigeonBomb -> LeftOrRightSameShite, 2016-01-16 10:48:35

    I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration. There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational headline.

    errr ... OK ... how about these them apples:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/19/vigil-marks-10th-anniversary-of-iran-hanging-two-gay-teens/

    sensational and sour enough for you?

    LiviaDrusilla -> mj50, 2016-01-16 10:48:27
    I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would be dropped and everyone could get back to business.

    They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they finally saw sense.

    usini, 2016-01-16 10:47:41
    Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline to Chah Bahar.
    LiviaDrusilla -> wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:45:59

    100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.

    Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people, with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades - of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.

    London's a kip anyway.

    JohannesL -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 10:42:42
    George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results.
    andyoldlabour -> fanazipan, 2016-01-16 10:41:33
    They have killed Iranian scientists in Iran. They have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians.
    JohannesL -> Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:41:03
    Surely Iran is much less a terrorist supporter than the US and the UK?
    chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 10:36:53
    Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted. The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think you were being relevant.
    1ClearSense, 2016-01-16 10:36:08
    It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged in by interviews.
    wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:34:20
    100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.

    Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward six years. (price doubles every six years).

    Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:33:56
    Yes, there are a string of US presidents claiming God told them to do... or God wants them to be...
    mj50 -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 10:33:24
    Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided what the policy was they had little choice.
    Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:31:21
    Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't be sanctioned can it...
    frankoman -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:30:57
    He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden' nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
    Vizzeh -> Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:30:09
    Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration, and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition, genocide.
    copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:30:01
    The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars, now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize a birthday party.
    stevenfieldfare , 2016-01-16 10:28:39
    ....only a good day if Iran holds to its side of the deal... if not, downstream confrontation will move from possible to probable...
    LiviaDrusilla -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:28:32
    I think Bibi's play-acting just blew up in his face.
    ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:28:28
    It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth. He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe, to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
    LordWotWot, 2016-01-16 10:25:53
    "Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
    LiviaDrusilla -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:25:35
    Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's site.

    I also loved this quote:

    "A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course."

    So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead 'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians were fibbing, as always?

    Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:20:25
    Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.

    No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN etc

    Hottentot, 2016-01-16 10:10:37
    This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.

    Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."

    Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating an unnecessary situation further.

    Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:04:47
    Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant to see it?
    Dennis Pachernegg -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:55:22
    If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course, if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical experts. Are you?
    acornstooaks -> supercool, 2016-01-16 09:55:12
    Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.

    I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of our sustainable employment in the UK.

    LiviaDrusilla -> 12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:54:12
    If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"? Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
    karabasbarabas , 2016-01-16 09:47:26
    The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
    LiviaDrusilla -> Dennis Pachernegg, 2016-01-16 09:47:16
    When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries - as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports, his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his boss chose the sensible option.
    12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:45:59
    All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution .
    Katrin3 -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 09:45:58
    Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything can happen.

    It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers, in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.

    Dennis Pachernegg -> oddbubble, 2016-01-16 09:43:43
    Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started, ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it should be different now.
    chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 09:41:10
    You're joking, aren't you? Iran's output before the embargo was 2.6 mbpd, it has since been 1.4 mbpd.
    jimbobsmells -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 09:37:45

    British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.

    The quotes from Hammond today certainly prove that.
    LiviaDrusilla -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 09:37:07
    Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that will be dropped very quickly.
    Katrin3 -> hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 09:31:03
    Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
    damienbridges, 2016-01-16 09:29:42
    Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
    DeadDingo -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:28:00
    where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest?
    andytyrrell -> laguerre, 2016-01-16 09:23:15
    Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that, there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to us.
    supercool, 2016-01-16 09:18:59
    Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.

    They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most things around the world is stunning.

    Powerspike -> hobot, 2016-01-16 09:08:17
    The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force (such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
    Powerspike -> Zepp, 2016-01-16 09:03:33
    The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    Powerspike -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:56:19
    America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
    HowSicklySeemAll, 2016-01-16 08:51:48
    Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group, but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.

    If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe, or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade unions.

    ConventionPrevention -> xredsx, 2016-01-16 08:47:16
    It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like. I do all the time. ;)

    Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the United States! This is wrong.

    So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them they are full of it.

    William Livingstone -> hobot, 2016-01-16 08:39:34
    Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia.
    Blenheim -> Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:39:07
    When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?

    After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the Saudis?..
    Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
    The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your peril.

    Saltyandthepretz -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 08:38:44
    It could also be the case that conservative voices have been muted, taking away the paranoid suspicion that has hobbled both Iran and the US.
    Blenheim -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 08:27:02
    Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they .. it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.

    Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up the potential to make a bomb?..
    Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.

    Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:20:06

    But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place

    Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?

    xredsx -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:08:09
    I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
    quorkquork, 2016-01-16 07:59:22

    But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies would still have to comply with those restrictions.

    Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria, saying:

    The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict has seen too much of already.

    That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate' from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.

    Stunning hypocrisy and outright criminality.

    It's time to abandon our obsession with Syrian 'moderates'

    ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 07:56:20
    What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
    Blenheim -> VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:41:26
    Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.

    I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's current hypocrisy stinks.

    ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 07:30:19
    This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters. Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.

    The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to high heaven. It smells like shit.

    VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:25:05
    A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving peace a chance"

    PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman, n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now! .

    hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 07:24:58
    Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me. They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't suit Saudi Arabia.

    The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.

    André De Koning , 2016-01-16 07:22:31
    "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."

    Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence trading.

    Blenheim -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:21:45
    That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being asked surely?..
    Blenheim, 2016-01-16 07:19:20
    But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue in that regard.

    I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming your way to insulate against future western blackmail.

    I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's listening .. Ha, yes we do!

    aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:01:42
    Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.

    Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress, though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.

    Powerspike, 2016-01-16 06:58:40
    I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/15/the-u-s-radically-changes-its-story-of-the-boats-in-iranian-waters-to-an-even-more-suspicious-version /

    Zepp, 2016-01-16 06:51:45
    The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained a base.

    Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians, at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.

    MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 06:43:23
    Excellent news, progression towards a peaceful resolution. Heart breaking news for Israel and Saudi Arabia!

    [Jan 16, 2016] Iran oil exports: where do they go? by Ami Sedghi

    This is Guardian article written just before imposition of sanctions in 2012.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep out of other peoples affairs. ..."
    Feb 6, 2012 | www.theguardian.com

    The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.

    Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.

    Bobmex , 22 Feb 2012 9:48

    It's all about keeping Israel top dog in the area. Wipe out the competition one by one.

    borderboy , 22 Feb 2012 2:50
    'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively'

    - I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here.. Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again

    FatBobby -> firstnamejames , 21 Feb 2012 10:16
    firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position of power!

    Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!

    What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype and played right into Bin Laden's hands.

    Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick, resolute' action.

    We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for the Iranian people either.

    harrylaw , 21 Feb 2012 6:03
    This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
    RedRush , 20 Feb 2012 17:11

    Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep out of other people's affairs.

    The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators around the world.

    malcom, 20 Feb 2012 13:28
    Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan and North Korea.

    I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the undergrond test.....

    That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.

    icurahuman2, 20 Feb 2012 8:37
    I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves, the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all blow up.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Deep State controls that county. Voting Is for Chumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
    "... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
    "... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
    "... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
    "... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
    "... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
    "... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
    "... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
    "... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
    "... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
    "... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
    "... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
    "... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
    "... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
    "... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
    "... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
    "... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
    "... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 3:56:12 PM | 9

    For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other, they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.

    Voting Is for Chumps: Veteran Congressional Staffer Says 'Deep State' Already Controls America

    You still have to pay your taxes, though

    One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.

    In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

    Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

    The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.

    Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:

    "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

    The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.

    The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:

    The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.

    Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:

    On how the deep state operates:

    Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.

    And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.

    On who (and what) is part of the deep state:

    The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.

    Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."

    Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're doomed.

    The End.

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:05:02 PM | 10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    john | Jan 11, 2016 4:31:03 PM | 12

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    well, there's always this

    Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY) - YouTube

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:41:29 PM | 14

    @12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president, if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.

    How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?

    Lozion | Jan 11, 2016 4:58:21 PM | 15

    @10 Blackmail?
    Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in, he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family if he wouldn't submit..

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 5:22:54 PM | 17

    @lysias@10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide.

    US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the Deep State works.

    Bluemot5 | Jan 11, 2016 5:23:42 PM | 18

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?
    ...and then there is this... https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1024-tjeerd-andringa-exposes-the-kakistocracy/

    NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 11, 2016 5:45:15 PM | 23

    @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.

    People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped that often defy logic.

    jo6pac | Jan 11, 2016 6:22:07 PM | 25

    For everyone on deep state there is this.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/guest-post-obama-team-feared-revolt-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes.html

    #21 yep maybe the next pm for England. The candidate like obomber from the cia/m16.

    #11 I Agree

    jfl | Jan 11, 2016 7:00:06 PM | 28

    @10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?'

    1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state authorities to begin with.
    2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable' record.
    3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.

    ....

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 7:46:05 PM | 33

    The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).

    Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.

    The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump).

    juliania | Jan 11, 2016 8:50:00 PM | 37

    Lone Wolf @ 9

    That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.

    It's just plain awful.

    ben | Jan 11, 2016 10:04:10 PM | 42

    An excellent site with a deep look at the deep state: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/UNWELCOME_GUESTS

    V. Arnold | Jan 11, 2016 9:57:24 PM | 41

    Lone Wolf @ 9 & 17: Yep, that about covers it. Thanks.

    Stir this into the mix, and basically, America's system of governance is a fraud.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 10:05:02 PM | 43

    Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.

    "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    Susan Sunflowe r | Jan 11, 2016 10:54:55 PM | 49

    Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ... It looks to be another corker ...

    Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest.

    The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says.

    Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

    NYT: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says .

    ... ... ...

    Yeah, Right | Jan 12, 2016 3:13:58 AM | 63

    @10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?"

    Money.

    You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.

    Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.

    So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.

    This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.

    Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle.

    Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.

    jfl | Jan 12, 2016 3:30:05 AM | 64

    Great story chipnik ... you should continue in that vein more often.

    lysias @10 ... from guest77s recommended read ... @55 in the previous open thread ...

    The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , chapter 10

    Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it. If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.

    Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned, and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations would have to be curtailed.

    In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials," in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.

    The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...

    1. The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.

    2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought he was the right man at the right time.

    3. Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.

    The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.

    [Jan 12, 2016] M of A - The Saudi War On Everything Iran May Bounce Back As New Houthi Missile

    Notable quotes:
    "... The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brothers (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. ..."
    "... There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS. ..."
    "... No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. ..."
    "... there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..."
    "... Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    The BS nuclear deal between US and Iran was to get Iran to massively reduce its nuclear capabilities, which except for a war which the US is no way near ready for, So sophisticated subversion and sanction pressure was used instead.
    And those corporations wanting access to Iran now what access to extract from Iran, not contribute to it's economy.

    All the huffing and puffing by the Israeli state terrorists and Saudi tyranny about that deal, simply betrays their brutal idiotic methods, compared to more sophisticated methods to the US empire is capable of.

    And The US already set up the war showdown between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with its divide and conquer policy, and its massive sales of weapons to the Saudi tyranny. That war is just A matter of time. It's proxies first and then it's full scale engagement between those two states.

    tom | Jan 4, 2016 2:22:50 PM | 2
    Unless you know something and are not sharing this article is speculation. Arming the Houthi's would, in my opinion, be about as intelligent as was arming the Taliban in the 1980's. The armed Houthi's may take care of the Saudi's (just like the Taliban took care of the Russians in that case) but then who would take care of the Houthi's? and what other havoc would they cause? Different players here but the tactic would be similar and have the same potential of backfiring in the long run.
    Khalid Shah | Jan 4, 2016 2:24:45 PM | 3
    B, from what you are saying your 'smart move by KSA' is looking more and more like another dumb move by KSA... If the Saudis had executed just 'al-Qaeda types' and put out a press release showing how they are cracking down on terrorism the kingdom would be attracting support from their allies right now--"Those Saudis are brutal but at least they know how to get the job done." Of course, it's unclear how much right wing/Islamic State backlash they might have gotten domestically but I suspect it would have been minimal as long as the unofficial KSA paychecks to the terrorists kept coming.
    WorldBLee | Jan 4, 2016 2:28:11 PM | 4
    There is another reason why Saudi Arabia created a crisis just after the killing of Alloush.

    Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. It now worries that the other side, the Syrian government will win an overwhelming diplomatic victory if the planned meeting in Geneva takes place. Therefore it is doing all it can to prevent that meeting to happen. The execution of Sheikh Nimr and the subsequent rupture of the diplomatic relation with Iran is the first move. More of these desperate gesticulation are necessary. But as they'll fail to change much of Iran and Russia's determination to move on on Syria, it will only confirm to the whole world that it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.

    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:09:26 PM | 12
    #12 -- ""Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. ""

    good, excellent point ... this execution could simply have been payback ... and/or "dog ate my homework" excuse providing for why they're going to, say, no-show in Vienna ...

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 4:17:10 PM | 14
    It could be that the killing of Sheikh Nimr is to the Saudis what the shooting of the Russian plane has been to the Turks: a provocative blunder with unexpected consequences.
    The two Sunni leaders, Erdogan and King Salman are very close to loose the 4 years old game of toppling Bashar al Assad. In these desperate moves, are they hoping to reshuffle the cards by provoking Syria's allies?
    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:28:01 PM | 18
    Andoheb,

    They are Quahir1 missiles. While the Yemeni Forces claim they are upgraded , obsolete Soviet ballistic missiles, re-engineered in Yemen,

    Visual identification suggests that they are ancient, obsolete SAM-3 antiaircraft missiles, ( which the Yemen Army had thousands), with a new warhead and a guidance system conversion to make them ballistic missiles.

    To date, Iran has supplied nothing to the Ansrallah Movement, other than kind words,.....

    And a single shipment of Humanitarian aid to Yemeni NGO's.

    Brunswick | Jan 4, 2016 4:57:38 PM | 23
    Sunni Islam is actually more democratic than Shia Islam. The Wahabist strain is just such a huge departure from traditional Sunni values. I wish I saved all my conversations with a Muslim friend about these issues. We boiled it down to making a comparison that Christians can understand. Sunni Islam is similar to Protestantism is that it is highly decentralized. Anyone that reaches that status of Iman (Minister) can issue a religious ruling (fatwa). Shia are similar to Catholics. The Grand Ayatollahs are bishops but in the Iranian government the Grand Ayatollah is the Pope.

    The Wahabist are....I do not know how to properly describe them.

    Sunni have a natural inclination to a democratic government (I'm not saying that Shia do not, 1954...). Western Imperialism has prevented every moderate attempt. The only place left for Muslims to organize is in radical religious groups. All other modes of reform have been destroyed. We are all witnessing the children of the Dulles era CIA The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President.

    AnEducatedFool | Jan 4, 2016 5:11:46 PM | 24
    I still find it very interesting that everyone seems to think that these "smart, stupid" whatever you want to call them are actually KSA independent choices

    Lol they are flying the worlds most expensive toys in Yemen and getting their asses handed to them. Trust me when i tell you this. Saudis and Emirate Arabs in general are nothing but Bedouin desert dwellers or as the line from titanic goes "new money"

    If people are too blind to see the British/US/Israeli hands in this then go ahead and keep debating about the smoke screen or the true colour of wool being pulled over your eyes.

    Saudis and Bahrain are not independent states. They are military bases for the US against Iran, Rusia, China grabbing control of the rest of the middle east.

    Executing "rabble rousing" Nimr , will in turn be the downfall of KSA and all these "Analysts" think tanks and what not will finally realize that the ME is not what it always seems

    Deebo | Jan 4, 2016 5:33:05 PM | 29
    Iraq Says Mosque Bombings Were False Flag ISIS Attacks
    "An Iraqi official blamed the Islamic State group on Monday for the bombing of two Sunni mosques in a predominantly Shiite city in southern Iraq the previous night, saying the militant group seeks to stoke sectarian tensions," AP reports. ISIS "did this to inflame sectarian strife in the country," provincial security official Falah al-Khafaji contends.

    ZeroHedge speculates:

    Taking it a step further, one has to wonder whether there's a larger plan here. That is, if we assume ISIS, like the multitude of other Sunni extremist groups operating in the region, is taking its cues from handlers and benefactors, it's not difficult to imagine that "someone" could be attempting to create an excuse for an intervention in Iraq.
    Jackrabbit | Jan 4, 2016 6:07:47 PM | 33
    Save that date -- the next installment of Syrian peace negotiations:
    "[Staffan] De Mistura is due to launch peace talks between Assad's government and the opposition in Geneva on January 25, but it remained unclear whether the Iran-Saudi crisis would have an impact on that plan.

    De Mistura has flown to Ryadh and is due to then visit Tehran ... Yeah, I can't see these two parties sharing a table ....

    ""UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011. snip

    In his talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir, Ban urged Saudi Arabia "to renew its commitment to a ceasefire" in Yemen after the Riyadh-led coalition announced on Sunday that it was ending the truce with Iran-backed rebels in the country.[yemen]

    The U.N. envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, was to hold talks in Riyadh on Wednesday to push for a renewed ceasefire.

    Alaraiya.net

    It was a brilliant move in an effort to hit "re-set back to nil" at a moment when "progress" might appear on the far horizon.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 7:10:48 PM | 34
    @12 virgile '... it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.'

    Yes. Solid observation. How come their best friends in USrael didn't warn them of that particular aspect of their stupid act?

    @24 AEF ' The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. '

    Ain't that the truth. Because of those two and their succeeding stream of 'investment bankers' at the CIA

    @33 SS from your link 'UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011.'

    Ban Ki-moon is a US poodle, so this further indicates to me that USrael wouldn't mind at all if there were a change in management in Saudi Arabia ... and if the place goes up for grabs, why they - NATO - will just have to step in to provide 'stability'.

    jfl | Jan 4, 2016 7:47:02 PM | 36
    SS@34

    Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy, they certainly came prepared to torch the place and met little resistance from Iranian security.

    Wayoutwest | Jan 4, 2016 8:03:51 PM | 39
    @24 AnEducatedFool,

    Would the Wahhabis be equivalent to a Christian Reconstructionist movement gone militant with state funding?

    @39 ATH,

    I don't see how we can say policies are decided at the ballot box unless they can recall their "representatives" as easily as they can elect them. It's part of the weak-mindedness of liberal society that management somehow equals democracy.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 8:09:21 PM | 41
    @Wayoutwest

    "Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy..."

    The same can be said about any country in the world and there is no need for a militia to do that. It is a well known facts, maybe not by you but among those who are following the real news, that the more than 10 or so Iranian embassies and consulates ransacked et pillaged during the 80's in the European cities were all done under the complacent eyes and noses of the security services of the protecting states. In actuality I believe doing it the Iranian way, i.e. keeping a façade of deniability, is more honorable that what the European state did... and for some are still doing.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 8:16:38 PM | 43
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @Lone Wolf

    "Pariah status" or "rebuilding" a presumed broken relations "with the world" is what you have been made to believe by the MSM. Iran is actually reducing tension in the nuclear dossier to better work out its strategic realignment that are based on sovereignty and political independence. The first sign of which has already appeared in a strategic alliance in Syria.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 9:57:05 PM | 55

    There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS.

    From the Saudi prism, the orgy of executions was on the one hand, a performance intended to downplay growing criticism of the kingdom's funding of the globally despised ISIS and on the other end, an act of appeasing ISIS by killing this highly popular Shiite leader. Nimr's execution could have been intended to mitigate the group's rage and reduce the potential to target Saudi institutions instead of Shiite mosques as they have done in the past.

    metni | Jan 4, 2016 10:11:51 PM | 58
    @Jonathan

    This sounds off topic but for the sake of a reply,

    No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. The difference between the Iranian political scaffolding and the European systems in particular but also, at the limit, the American one is that the former is based on a younger society and still in formation while the latters have already passed the middle-age period in their life cycle.

    And to answer your question: "how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?" the only way for this to be possible in my opinion is the breakdown of states with globalist reach into local and regional states with decision-making being directly made by citizens... a Helvetic kind of confederation.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 10:18:09 PM | 59
    Not to forget, nearly a thousand Iranians died during the hajj in Mecca:

    The 2015 Mina Crush disaster has increased tensions in the already-strained relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, led to calls from politicians in a number of Muslim nations for changes in oversight of Mecca and the Hajj, and bolstered opposition to King Salman among the senior members of the Saudi Arabian royal family.

    Oui | Jan 4, 2016 10:51:34 PM | 63
    how many think like this author - michael krieger from sept 30th 2015, that there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..

    i don't know who is doing what inside the sa hierarchy, but it sure comes across as chaotic and troublesome.. regime change is a distinct probability! which guy goes? the old guy, or the young guy? scary either way..

    james | Jan 5, 2016 12:10:18 AM | 70
    A couple of assassins and mass-murderers who are grateful for the chance to compare themselves to the Saudis and find the Saudis lacking ...

    US warned Saudis of Nimr's execution in advance

    "There have been direct concerns raised by US officials to Saudi officials about the potential damaging consequences of following through on the execution, on mass executions, in particular, the execution of" al-Nimr, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.
    Turkey: Politics behind Nimr's execution
    Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus told a press conference on Monday that the execution did not have Ankara's support.

    "We are against all instances of capital punishment, especially when it is politically motivated," he said.

    Both had meetings with the Saudis before their mass beheading festival and could have saved the Saudi junior woodchuck if they wanted to. I wonder what's in the collapse of the present Saudi regime for them? Control of orphaned Saudi oilfields in the one case and of orphaned Saudi Mamluk terrorists in the other?
    jfl | Jan 5, 2016 2:48:31 AM | 71
    The Real Reason Why Saudi Arabia Executed Sheikh Nimr

    by Shireen Hunter

    http://lobelog.com/the-real-reason-why-saudi-arabia-executed-sheikh-nimr/

    Nor is this mere speculation. Saudi Arabia for some time has been trying to provoke Iran. First there was the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain. Then there were Saudi efforts to topple the Assad regime. These were followed by the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Beirut in 2013, which killed a number of Lebanese as well as Iran's cultural attaché. More recently, during the Haj ceremonies, Saudi authorities harassed two Iranian youth and a large number of Iranian pilgrims died as well. The Saudi government, moreover, created many difficulties for Iranian officials trying to locate, identify, and transfer the bodies of the victims to Iran. And of course Saudi Arabia launched a full-scale war in Yemen against what it claimed were Iranian-backed rebels.

    Another provocation came last month when Nigerian authorities arrested the country's Shia leader, Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaki, and the Nigerian army killed close to a thousand Shias for spurious reasons. Following Sheikh Zakzaki's arrest Saudi King Salman reportedly congratulated Nigeria's president for dealing effectively with terrorism (the king's definition of terrorism apparently extends to the peaceful observance of religious rituals). Meanwhile, the abuse of the Shias in other countries, notably Azerbaijan, continued as did their indiscriminate killing by Saudi- influenced groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as illustrated by the beheading in November of a nine-year-old Hazara girl in Afghanistan.

    virgile | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:11 AM | 75
    One also shouldn't forget that there's struggle going on between the "Group Abdullah" and the "Group Salman".

    Abdullah was the former king and Salman is the current king of Saudi Arabia. Former king Abdullah and his "followers" did A LOT OF things to reduce the influence/power of the "Group Salman". E.g. Abdullah appointed his followers to influential positions.

    But now with Salman on the throne, Salman is doing the same thing with his followers. Appoint as much of followers to influential positions as possible. And it seems the struggle is far from over.

    And Saudi Arabia is in "not the best of financial shapes". No surprise there. A combination of:
    - Falling/Fallen oil prices.
    - VERY large military expenses (Yemen, Syria).
    - Increased expenses for the saudi population. Saudi Arabia increased payments to its citizens to bribe them into not revolting during & after the "Arab Spring" in 2011.
    - ((Very) large) subsidies for Healthcare, electricity, gasoline.

    Recently the saudi government increased the price of gasoline by 50% (!!!!) from 15 cents to 22 cents. Outrageous !!!!!!!!

    Willy2 | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:47 AM | 76
    @onatan@73

    Aircraft keep falling out of the sky over Yemen quite regularly. They are always described as the result of 'technical reasons'. That covers a whole range of possibilities from engine failure to back end of aircraft disappearing after missile strike.

    Here is a report on a recent incident (30 Dec) involving a Bahraini F-16.

    Thanks for those links, it's been my impression Yemen army/Houthis have no flak capability, hence the Saudis control of the skies, and the carnage on civilians/damage to infrastructure.

    I have read news of Saudi fighter jets downed over Yemen due to "technical failure" as you mentioned, that could or could not be the Houthis/Yemen army. I certainly hope they develop AA defenses, as the Vietnamese progressively did, that would help diminish the carnage and will give the Saudis a pause in their impunity.

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 11:57:11 AM | 83
    The U.S. Doesn't "Need" to "Stand With" the Saudis

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-u-s-doesnt-need-to-stand-with-the-saudis/

    D | Jan 5, 2016 7:59:23 PM | 94
    Yesterday, I saw a headline on (I think) RT that said the US was "standing with the Saudis"
    Today, I saw this.

    Bloomberg oah Feldman: U.S. Can Afford to Side With Iran Over Saudis

    To be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.
    bqqTo be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 6, 2016 1:50:10 AM | 97
    metni says:

    Further efforts devoted at tightening our embrace of the House of Saud is less a choice than a consummation of an existing Faustian bargain

    Faustian bargain? it's fucking national security doctrine .

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force

    john | Jan 6, 2016 9:05:15 AM | 99
    @Lozion@96

    Can any of you recommend a good blog/site following the events in Yemen? With the media blackout it is very hard to find out was is really going on on the ground.. Txs.

    Try the Russian Defense Forum, they have two sections on Yemen, Yemeni Conflict: News, and Yemeni Conflict: News #2.

    There is very little news on Yemen, and I don't know of any bloggers following Yemen per se. Hope that helps.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina by Jack Rasmus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.

    With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.

    ... ... ...

    Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come

    Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's recent media law. And that's just the beginning.

    Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.

    What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:08:12 PM | 10

    The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... Jack Rasmus has an excellent survey at Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina .

    The war on the homefront seems won as far as Neolibraconia is concerned, at least the lock-up, see A Minimal Demand: Roll Back Incarceration to 1970 Levels , and here are pictures: animated and still .

    That report from FARS seems worrisome indeed.

    Our man b called Merkel's move for what it was before it was : After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes .

    I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?

    2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be going south at this particular point in time anyway.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:45:14 PM | 11

    Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec

    The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions – still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.

    That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum , for instance, has extensively documented, as since the end of WWII Washington attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments – the absolute majority full democracies; dropped bombs on the civilian population of over 30 nations ; attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders ; attempted to suppress nationalist movements in 20 nations ; interfered on countless democratic elections; taught torture through manuals and "advisers"; and the list goes on.

    The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire internal support, and that's far from given.

    The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

    The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

    So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

    [Jan 10, 2016] Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    "... I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers. ..."
    "... The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course. ..."
    moonofalabama.org
    jfl | Jan 9, 2016 9:30:54 PM | 100

    #87 juliania

    Somebody provided a link to a pdf of a Kathy Greenhill's paper. Although I have the pdf, I only find the paper in html now ...

    Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    Abstract: This paper presents a case study of the August 1994 Cuban "balseros"-i.e. rafters-crisis, commonly known as Mariel II, during which over 35,000 Cubans fled the island and headed towards Florida. This paper argues that Castro launched the crisis in an attempt to manipulate the US's fears of another Mariel boatlift, in order to compel a shift in United States (US) policy, both on immigration and on a wider variety of issues. As the end of the crisis brought with it a radical redefinition of US immigration policy toward Cuba, the paper further contends that from Castro's perspective, this exercise in coercion proved a qualified success-his third such successful use of the Cuban people as an asymmetric political weapon against the US.
    ... one of the few arrows in Castro's quiver, he used it effectively. The article is about the 1994 Balseros Crisis, but Greenhill recounts : The Camarioca Crisis, 1965; The Mariel Boatlift, 1980; and The August 1994 Balseros Crisis. The Mariel Boatlift was 'the big one' : 125,000 Cubans. Dwarfed by Erdogan. A million in Germany alone.

    I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers.

    The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course.

    [Jan 10, 2016] The Wall Street Casino so far handed out losses well.

    This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
    Notable quotes:
    "... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
    "... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
    "... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
    "... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
    "... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
    "... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
    "... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
    "... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
    "... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
    "... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
    "... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
    discussion.theguardian.com
    John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:45
    What a shock...the Wall Street Casino handed out losses...imagine my surprise.
    PlatonKuzin -> John Pacella , 9 Jan 2016 06:56

    It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats!

    anyoneanytime , 9 Jan 2016 05:24
    Looks like its going to be a great year. Eat the rich.
    peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:08
    Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another crash.

    Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.

    ID470129 -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 05:16
    Be careful what you wish for.
    giveusaclue -> peter nelson , 9 Jan 2016 09:52
    That's ok unless you are about to retire and draw your private pension.

    benbache -> greven , 9 Jan 2016 07:02

    "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey Gardiner.

    Economic gurus come in all forms.

    goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 04:28
    The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
    benbache -> goatrider , 9 Jan 2016 07:02
    Except on food.
    BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 04:12
    With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.

    These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing chaos and more stupidity.
    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    FreddySteadyGO -> BlackAbbott , 9 Jan 2016 05:30

    But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world to gamble away the lives of others?

    Not stupid but captivated perhaps?

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    BlackAbbott -> FreddySteadyGO , 9 Jan 2016 06:00

    We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.

    Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
    So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
    Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 02:41
    The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless. We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
    420atmosphere -> Zhubajie , 9 Jan 2016 03:50
    We do not have a third world economy. Get real...
    BlackAbbott -> 420atmosphere , 9 Jan 2016 04:14

    We do not have a third world economy. Get real

    It will be if the stock market fools carry on the way they are.
    Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 01:53
    This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.

    The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real world catches up with you.

    ID2463357 -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:09
    Well, it's complicated :-)

    I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.

    Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed for at least several years, fwiw.)

    prematureoptimsim -> Beckow , 9 Jan 2016 02:24
    Sounds absolutely dismal.
    But accurate.
    boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:29
    Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do?
    ID NO. 1984 -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 01:46
    they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
    Alex Newman -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:01
    What has QE got to do with Chinese stock market volatility?
    greven -> boscovee , 9 Jan 2016 04:46
    The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. \

    If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.

    [Jan 10, 2016] US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba

    Notable quotes:
    "... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
    "... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
    "... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
    "... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
    "... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
    "... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
    "... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
    "... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
    "... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
    "... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
    "... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
    "... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
    "... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
    "... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
    "... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
    "... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
    The Guardian


    Kosala Kodikara 9 Jan 2016 12:28

    A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .


    newpilgrim 9 Jan 2016 09:23

    Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous hi-tech military hardware responsibly?


    Kevin Brent 9 Jan 2016 02:24

    Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door.


    beermad -> CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 16:27

    Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand for that.

    BG Davis 8 Jan 2016 10:51

    Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.

    lostinbago -> JoeP 8 Jan 2016 10:09

    Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization.


    lostinbago -> Al Lewis 8 Jan 2016 10:04

    You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change.

    TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions.

    CheaterA 8 Jan 2016 09:59

    What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well, priceless.


    Smallworld5 8 Jan 2016 09:11

    Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.

    Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.


    trazer985 -> pretzelattack 8 Jan 2016 09:01

    It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline!

    Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of this story...


    TommyGuardianReader 8 Jan 2016 08:34

    "The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed country, whether that country can use it or not."

    Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.

    However, if it was a simple fuck-up:

    1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.

    2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as Guantanamo Bay.

    There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the United Nations.

    While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base


    pretzelattack -> Ziontrain 8 Jan 2016 08:33

    i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.


    mikedow -> toggy12 8 Jan 2016 07:50

    They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".


    Julie Lamin 8 Jan 2016 07:49

    Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their little bit of kit back.

    TonyBistol 8 Jan 2016 05:39

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km away.


    jgbg Tradingman66 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country) was armed and almost detonated.


    tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24

    LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.

    Lucky it wasn't a nuke.


    jgbg Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 05:11

    I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.

    Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.


    JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06

    What's to hide?

    The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.

    The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.

    The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move, hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!

    The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.

    Doug_Niedermeyer 8 Jan 2016 04:52

    Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back.

    hogsback -> ID0728468 8 Jan 2016 04:47

    I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF

    So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?

    They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.

    SenseCir 8 Jan 2016 04:36

    This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba must return the missile at once.


    juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35

    Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.

    The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.


    hogsback -> trazer985 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is sitting under you when you are off on your hols.

    What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).


    DThompson5 -> martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:30

    The link to that survey...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/


    Polly Parrot 8 Jan 2016 04:26

    What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands


    EpaminondasUSA 8 Jan 2016 04:25

    Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.


    DThompson5 martinusher 8 Jan 2016 04:14

    Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.

    2bveryFrank 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's hands! Idiots the lot of them!

    Epivore 8 Jan 2016 03:57

    "instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."

    And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...

    UncertainTrumpet 8 Jan 2016 03:26

    US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.

    Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz 8 Jan 2016 03:15

    The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor symtom of a far more insidious malaise.


    siansim -> bemusedbyitall 8 Jan 2016 03:02


    bemusedbyitall said:

    No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor clerical or communications error...

    ...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/us-tank-enters-ruined-afghan-hospital-putting-war-evidence-at-risk

    US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending

    poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58

    Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos, how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;

    Here is the link of yesterday:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/how-corrupt-american-government and today Zero hedge has some very interesting articles
    like this oneL Has anyone noticed how the guardian covers Libya?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/pray-us-libya-issues-cry-help-isis-advances-oil-fields
    and
    Qadafi warned Tony Blair (the bozo): Jihadists will attack Europe!
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/jihadists-will-attack-europe-leaked-phone-call-shows-gaddafi-warned-tony-blair-terro
    and Hillaryton's motive for invading Lybia:

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
    "The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."

    Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential" explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

    This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
    (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

    Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

    Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
    French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."

    Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.


    Havingalavrov 8 Jan 2016 02:50

    Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the technology ???

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire#Operators


    Mohanraj Cp 8 Jan 2016 01:56

    The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!


    Long6fellow 8 Jan 2016 01:52

    The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of 1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks cannot be trust at all.


    BudGreen -> Freddienerk 8 Jan 2016 00:47

    Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early 80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.


    synchronicfusion 8 Jan 2016 00:05

    As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB! It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Sheikh Nimr: Martyr of World War III

    Notable quotes:
    "... "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies." ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. ..."
    journal-neo.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 9, 2016 8:18:11 PM | 95

    Saudi Arabia is in dire trouble today as the outcry over recent executions mounts. The execution of Shia Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr in the most brutal day of executions in the country in three decades has now sparked violence across the region. If Saudi Arabia is destabilized, the Middle East could easily turn into a bloodbath of biblical proportions. This begs the big question, "What is really behind these apparently symbolic executions?" [...]

    [...] In the Shadow of Machiavelli

    The best clue as to "who stands behind" this new Saudi-Iran crisis comes to us from the Washington Post. For anyone still unaware, this Amazon owned media outlet is the perfect barometer of what is NOT true in the world of international affairs these days. Using "reverse news" psychology here, the article by Karen DeYoung tells us all we need to know about al-Nimr's execution. If you will allow me this quote:

    "Obama administration officials expressed deep concern Sunday that the abrupt escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have repercussions extending to the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the diplomatic efforts to end Syria's civil war, and wider efforts to bring stability to the Middle East."

    Citing unnamed officials in Barack Obama's administration has become the guiding principle of corporate media in America these last few years, and the Washington Post misdirects have never been more transparent than today. This piece is misleading, supportive of Saudi and US disruption in the region, and anti-Iranian to the extreme. The author continues using another source who is a "authorized to convey Saudi thinking on the condition of anonymity," if you can imagine such a conveyance. According to the WP, Saudi Arabia is framed as the only nation "doing something", and I quote:

    "Tehran has thumbed its nose at the West again and again, continuing to sponsor terrorism and launch ballistic missiles and no one is doing anything about it."

    Then BAM! Steve Bezos' newspaper barks the real intent of this propaganda bit bringing Russia into the fray with:

    " Iran, along with Russia, is the leading backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect, and Riyadh views the civil war as part of Iran's fight for sectarian dominance."

    As I type this from our offices in Germany, US F-15 and F-16 fighters fly overhead in a continuous stream from the US air base at Spangdahlem Air Base. I mention this only because 2 years ago we seldom if ever heard fighter aircraft overhead. These days even locals wonder if the flyovers have a purpose beyond intimidation, or at least some residents have expressed this to me personally. The current undeclared war of resolve, it bears witnessing and a focus on all these events in the Middle East. My point being, Riyadh's actions of the last few days are part of an overall western strategy of unrest. If the Washington Post tells you Obama's White House is worried over something, you can count on the Washington having been part of the cause of the event. In this case we see the "never say die" war against Assad and Russia in the works. It is a crazy bit of irony that WP's editor Karen DeYoung was once quoted as saying; "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power."

    Meanwhile, at the newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch (who has energy investments in the region) we have another indicative report, or should I say "counter indicative?" Jay Solomon reports on the weeping sadness of Barack Obama that his non-existent peace plan for Syria may be derailed by Riyhad's decision to sever ties with Iran. Within this report the "real" mission of the Saudis, and Washington's current administration is revealed. I'll rely on another quite to clue the reader. Referring to the John Kerry brokered "plan" the Wall Street Journal writer inadvertently betrays the Obama administration with:

    "Under the deal, Iran in the coming months is set to receive as much as $100 billion in frozen oil revenues, which could be used to support its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen."

    To sum up here, the goal all along has been misdirect from Obama's team. The Iran deal, the parlaying at various peace accords, all the State Department's efforts have been designed to frame the United States as peace loving, with the teddy bear John Kerry as a sort of Mother Teresa of détente. Has anyone noticed yet how every deal the man makes goes south in the end? Now Iran coming out of decades of useless sanctions is on the rocks, as was planned so it appears. The WSJ piece further implicates (by inaccuracy) the White House's Machiavellian strategies with.

    " As the conflict deepened over the weekend, with Saudi Arabia officially severing ties with Iran, U.S. officials expressed skepticism over how much influence Washington had in heading off a conflict based on centuries-old religious divisions."

    It is with this, and with the ad nauseam with which mainstream media parrots State Department rhetoric we find the true backers of terrorism and strife in the Middle East. The statement misleads readers into believing the situation in the Middle East is "out of the control" of Obama and Washington, when the reverse is absolutely true. The story goes on to plant the seed of military support for Saudi Arabia should the situation escalate, which it is certain to with the help of the lame duck Obama.

    When all is said and done, Nimr Baqr al-Nimr was a man of peaceful advocacy for the people of his belief and his region of Saudi Arabia. There is literally no proof to the contrary, yet he was summarily executed by a regime notorious for beheading its citizens. The Unites States of America has not only backed this regime, but has aligned herself in an auspicious manner over the years essentially using the Saudis as a vassal for regional control. This section of a WikiLeaks cable damns the Saudis for helping create the mess in Syria and elsewhere:

    "The USG engages regularly with the Saudi Government on terrorist financing. The establishment in 2008 of a Treasury attache office presence in Riyadh contributes to robust interaction and information sharing on the issue. Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

    Revelations Verse 19:11

    The cable is from the US State Department to various offices of the Saudi government, that of the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. This cable, along with dozens of other revelations about the backers of terror in the world, leaves no room for ambiguity. But what's far more disturbing is the way Washington, London and to a lesser extent Brussels are portraying current unrest as some type of religious war. The Christian-Jew-Muslim aspects of these crises are being used to hide the real cause of corporate governments supplanting rights and freedoms. This is a larger argument, but the correct one at this stage. What the world suffers from now is a hell bent effort by the godless of the world (elite bankers) to once again spark crusades for the purposes of strategy and profit. Most people reading this fully understand this, even though the exact culprits may be obscure.

    The summary of this story is fairly easy to parlay. Saudi Arabia just made a play for the neocons in Washington, the bankers in London, and for the Tel Aviv instigators who have so far remained in the shadows in all this. They created a martyr who may well serve their utterly evil needs, to set the world on fire one more time. Let me leave you with the most damning quote I have yet found. It is from WikiLeaks, and implicates the Obama and previous US administrations:

    "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies."

    Make no mistake here, America and Britain created this mess in the world, with the help of profiting allies like Saudi Arabia. The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. What we are witnessing is a last ditch effort to counter Vladimir Putin's play in the region, and to either win a new Syria partitioning, or else burn the deserts in total. This is a world war in the making, and the man on the pale horse seems evident now, the leader of the faithful and true. God help us all.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Jackrabbit | Jan 9, 2016 10:01:45 AM | 75

    Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis - as b pointed out early on when he noted that it fuels calls that "something must be done!" about Assad/Syria.

    EU President Donald Tusk has talked publicly of this :

    "For the first time in my political career I have heard politicians openly declaring that the refugees heading to Europe are their method of getting (us) [the EU] to act a certain way,"

    [Jan 09, 2016] There are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict

    www.moonofalabama.org

    harry law | Jan 9, 2016 6:22:57 AM | 64

    Can't disagree with this message from the Iranian Foreign Minister..

    "Saudi Arabia can either continue supporting extremist terrorists and promoting sectarian hatred, or it can opt for good neighborliness and play a constructive role in promoting regional stability, however; Iran hopes that Saudi Arabia will be persuaded to heed the call of reason,"

    Zarif said that there are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict; fearing that removal of the smokescreen of the manufactured Iranian nuclear threat would expose the real global threat posed by extremists and their sponsors, according to IRNA.

    The Iranian foreign minister recalled that those involved in extremist carnage and most members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front being either Saudi nationals, or otherwise brainwashed by petro-financed demagogues, who have promoted an anti-Islamic message of hatred, exclusion and sectarianism across the globe for decades.

    http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=248972&cid=19&fromval=1&frid=19&seccatid=32&s1=1

    [Jan 09, 2016] The Bizarre Need to Take Sides and Our Foreign Policy Debates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides. ..."
    "... The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is. ..."
    "... But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil… ..."
    "... From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's. ..."
    "... That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar. ..."
    "... now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part. ..."
    The American Conservative

    There is a strong bias against neutrality in our foreign policy debates. Not taking sides in this or that conflict is rarely taken seriously as an appropriate response. Instead of asking whether the U.S. should even take a side, it is taken for granted that the U.S. "must" choose one or the other, and the main debate concerns only how much and what kind of support to provide. This is a recurring problem in debating the proper response to conflicts inside countries as well as rivalries between them. One reason for this is that U.S. interests and the interests of another state or faction within a state are conflated from the beginning, and this is done to make it much more difficult to recognize that the U.S. doesn't actually have interests in the conflict or rivalry in question. Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides.

    Today's Fareed Zakaria column shows how difficult it is for most pundits to do this. Even when arguing for steering clear of regional sectarian rivalry, Zakaria can't avoid endorsing U.S. support for the Saudis:

    In general, the United States should support Saudi Arabia in resisting Iran's encroachments in the region, but it should not take sides in the broader sectarian struggle.

    But it is not possible to support an overtly sectarian Saudi government in its preoccupation with opposing Iranian influence without being pulled into the "broader sectarian struggle," in no small part because the Saudis define their resistance to Iran's supposed "encroachments" in terms of religious sect. The Saudis falsely claim that their war on Yemen is aimed at "resisting Iran's encroachments," and the U.S. has been supporting their campaign from the start, and in so doing it is helping to fuel sectarian hatreds in Yemen and beyond. Zakaria correctly recognizes the pitfalls of being pulled into sectarian conflicts in the region, but won't acknowledge that the U.S. is caught up in them because of the support it provides to sectarian governments. He specifically mentions the growing sectarianism in Yemen, but doesn't make the connection with U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention there. Despite explicitly saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sides in "someone else's civil war," he approves of doing just that by accepting that the U.S. should keep supporting the Saudis.

    One of the most common arguments for siding with the Saudis in their hostility towards Iran is that they are our "ally," and therefore the U.S. should automatically support the position of its "ally." This overlooks that the U.S. has no treaty obligations to the kingdom, and ignores that the so-called "ally" does virtually nothing for us. The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is.

    Prof. Woland, January 8, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil…

    Ian G., January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    I pull my hair out when seemingly reasonable people like Zakaria don't even bother asking why Saudi Arabia is our "ally". From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's.

    That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat.

    jamie, January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on?

    Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar.

    There's also very little question of Saudi regime's oil resources falling in the hands of populist or democratic elements that might use oil to overtly embarrass or destabilize the United States - the Saudi's bleed us dry, but subtlety and in a way that US voters are unlikely to punish their leaders for.

    Jon Lester, January 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    American neutrality might be the very thing needed to keep the conflict contained, and now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Contrary To Media Claims U.S. Always Sides With Its Saudi Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be sharply critical of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war? ..."
    "... I doubt that we will hear any sharply critical condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials. ..."
    "... In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations . ..."
    "... That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East. ..."
    "... U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist. ..."
    "... The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next. ..."
    "... The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obamas presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the mans character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nations prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are the establishments political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an enemy of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets. ..."
    "... Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIAs clandestine/black operations branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, revolution, with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ( I think Yats is the guy ) who would become the facade of the nazi takeover. ..."
    Jan 05, 2016 | M of A

    The "western" public, especially in Europe , now prefers good relations with Iran over relations with Saudi Arabia. It is a natural development when one considers that jihadi terrorism is a real concern and that the people involved in most international terrorist incidents follow variants of the Saudi spread Wahhabi ideology.

    This is now developing into a problem for the U.S. administration. Saudi Arabia, as other Gulf statelets, is a U.S. client state. Without U.S. support it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. The Saudis are made to pay for U.S. protection by buying overpriced U.S. weapon systems for tens of billion dollars per year. They also finance joint projects like the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and currently the U.S. regime change war on Syria.

    U.S. relation with Iran have become somewhat better due to the nuclear deal. But the Islamic Republic of Iran will never be a U.S. client state. Seen from the perspective of the global strategic competition it is in the same camp as the U.S. foes Russia and China. Unless the U.S. ceases to strive for global dominance it will continue to support its proxies on the western side of the Persian Gulf rather then the Iranians of the eastern side.

    The changed public view, very much visible after the recent Saudi execution of Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, necessitates to mask the real U.S. position by claiming that it is opposed to Saudi Arabian policies. The stenographers in U.S. media are always willing to help their government when such a cover up for a shoddy position is needed.

    In the Washington Post Karen De Young supports the administration by providing this lie:

    The United States has long joined international human rights organizations and other Western governments in criticizing Saudi human rights abuses ..

    Her colleague David Sanger at the New York Times is debunks that nonsense point with a rare reference to reality:

    The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed its elite to fund Islamic extremists.

    Sanger then replaces the "U.S. supports human-rights in Saudi Arabia" lie with another blatant one:

    the administration has [..] been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen

    The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be "sharply critical" of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war?

    Since Sunday there have been at least 11 Saudi air attacks on Yemen's capital Sanaa. Last night another wedding hall, the Commerce Chamber and the AlNoor Centre for the Blind were destroyed by U.S. provided Saudi bombs. I doubt that we will hear any "sharply critical" condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials.

    In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations .

    The New York Times editors falsely claim there is no choice for the U.S. other then to do what it does:

    The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria. Washington has no choice but to deal with regimes like those in Tehran [..] or in Riyadh to combat the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists or to search for solutions to massively destabilizing conflicts like the Syrian civil war.

    That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling "the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists" through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East.

    U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist.

    Au | Jan 5, 2016 11:03:32 AM | 1

    "The Western public now prefers good relations w/ Iran over relations w/ Saudi Arabia" I can't speak for everyone in the West but that is my sentiments exactly. Iran has been the center of deep state propaganda for so long that we have failed to realize - the Saudi's are more in need of a regime change then anyone in that region. Ultimately, screw them all, except for Syria - i'll never forget what Saudi Arabia and Turkey / western cohorts did to Syria - I hope it comes back to nest in Saudi Arabia..

    Bluemot5 | Jan 5, 2016 11:31:19 AM | 4

    Pat Buchanan article questioning current USA alliances.... http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/saudi-recklessness-exposes-our-own/

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 1:18:56 PM | 9

    Pleased that you included that excellent link from the Intercept, this from 'rrheard' in the comments section, it was so good I do hope he does not mind me posting part of it here. "America's foreign policy relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on exactly two things historically–Saudi's willingness to be a US proxy against communism in the region and the oil and weapons trade.

    And that says all you need to know about America's moral compass as well. I love the idea of my country, and absolutely detest what its leaders have done since WWII in service if its elites perceived "interests". Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that America's foreign policy over the last 60 years has nothing to do with the "best interests" of the American people, humanitarianism, human rights or the "interests" of any other people on the planet despite the cradle to grave propaganda apparatus in America that has a significant majority of American's believing such transparent twaddle as "American exceptionalism" or "we are always well intentioned, we just make mistakes" when it comes to the mass slaughter of non-Americans all over the globe.

    There hardly a fucking dictator on the planet that hasn't been backed by the American government and its business elites, politically and/or economically, so long as they are pliant when it comes to towing the line on America's "interests"."

    tom | Jan 5, 2016 2:12:32 PM | 10

    Agree with B, except with popular opinion. Most of the Western public so politically unprincipled and cowardly that they can be swayed quite easily to western imperial propaganda. It's just a matter of when the media turned on the hate/fear switch up to 2/10.

    Just look at the reminder in Congo genocide, with the people couldn't give a fuck, and is one of the worst genocides since World War II. Or the Rwandan genocide, with the propaganda that turned most of the victims into the guilty party and then lead genocidedal maniac - Paul Kagame, as the "sympathetic" president -now for life - thanks to the evil US empires evil media.

    Blaming the Russians for the plane crash over Ukraine, gas attacks blamed on Assad. And then you can count thousands of examples where people in the west vote or support policies that are against their own health, social and political interests.
    No, most Western people are willing to place the jackboot gladly under their neck, till they realise it's too late.

    Jen | Jan 5, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 15

    To Dan @2 and Jackrabbit @5:

    In an odd way, you are both right. The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next.

    Think of the US government as several psychopaths working together. Psychopaths basically only care about looking out for No 1. If two or more psychopaths discover that working together allows them to fulfill their individual goals quicker than if they worked separately, then they'll co-operate.

    The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obama's presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the man's character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nation's prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told.

    In short, if the oil lobby, the pro-Israeli lobby, other industry and country lobbies in the US government find that their interests coincide, they'll work as one through Congress and the various federal government departments.

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 3:42:05 PM | 19

    Lysias@18 Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' he goes on, "That's phase one - to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?"
    This is exactly what the Mafia say to their victims.

    Oui | Jan 5, 2016 4:13:45 PM | 21

    Trump speaks the lingo of the House of Saud, well at least of Prince Bandar, now deposed of his key role to influence the West. Wasn't it Bandar who offered a terror free Sochi games for Assad's head on a platter. Putin must have calmly replied if any harm comes to Russia in the period of the Olympic Winter games, Saudi Arabia may just lose one of it's cities.

    Blair and now Cameron deal with Saudi Arabia to exchange modern weapons for protection from AQ terror in the UK. It's the British (and French) who were willing to join Obama in bombing Assad's Syria in September 2013. Now it's the British and Americans who offer intelligence and logistic support to KSA and the GCC allies in bombing Yemen back to deeper medieval times. AQAP will use this to their advantage.

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Kooshy | Jan 5, 2016 4:44:08 PM | 26

    The DC rag WP is really craving for a good, big sectarian regional war in ME, I am afraid they are not going to get it, Iranian have been acting responsibly not letting US, Israel, and their Arab insecure clientele wishes come

    Through. Never the less WP editors would want their readers believe Iranian protestors meant to attack a SUNNI embassy, and not the Embassy of Saudi Arabia who was responsible for executed an innocent Shia high clergy.

    "The execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia has sparked a furor in the Middle East along sectarian lines. In Iran, the regional Shiite superpower, the Sunni embassy was ransacked and burned."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-sunnis-and-shiites-that-help-makes-sense-of-the-saudi-iran-crisis/

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 5:25:51 PM | 28

    @Oui@21

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Very good points, Oui. The neo-cons are the establishment's political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an "enemy" of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets.

    Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIA's "clandestine/black operations" branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, "revolution," with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ("I think Yats is the guy") who would become the facade of the nazi takeover.

    Syria, on the other hand, was a hard nut to crack, the neo-cons and the CIA made severe mistakes underestimating Assad and the resistance of the Syrian people. US/UK/NATO were announcing the fall of Assad every other day, and while many of those Western "leaders" are gone, Assad has survived all their ill-predictions. Neo-cons/CIA are fuming at the mouth constantly looking for a way to reverse their losses, and starting a little war between KSA-Iran is not such a bad idea, neo-cons swim like fish in chaos.

    They are getting set for another defeat by old Persian wisdom.

    Noirette | Jan 6, 2016 2:35:19 PM | 47

    Dan at 2. There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness

    The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:

    1. those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
    2. countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
    3. those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
    4. Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
    5. Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
    6. Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
    7. Countries it pretends to admire who are secretly dominated by them and only escape ostracism, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
    8. Other.

    That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disapproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war, and on and on.

    [Jan 07, 2016] Obama as yet another neocon president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind! ..."
    "... Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel safe . ..."
    "... All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president ..."
    "... I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance. ..."
    "... the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the angry white guy vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. ..."
    "... . Youd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. ..."
    "... You may know that some interpretations of the Pandoras Box myth have the release of Hope at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge. ..."
    "... Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame obstructionist Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large. ..."
    "... Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little good things he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists. ..."
    "... Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it. ..."
    "... Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses ..."
    "... TPP is the big tell for Obama. Hes fighting for that like nothing else. ..."
    "... ACA belongs in the Failures column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the Central Banks column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet. ..."
    "... Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as diplomacy ..."
    "... Obama wins my coveted Worst_President_Ever award ..."
    "... Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? Cmon people…we know a good president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum. ..."
    "... I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: I think hes a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But hes got a passable jump shot, so theres that . ..."
    "... Its hard to imagine anyone whos a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust. ..."
    "... Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincolns footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers power, Obama is the agent of corporate power. ..."
    "... The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you. ..."
    "... Obama doesnt care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth. ..."
    "... Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. ..."
    "... I dont believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is ..."
    "... I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. ..."
    "... Quite simply, I think Obama isnt bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. ..."
    "... he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified smart people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do. ..."
    "... I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. ..."
    "... I think hes ultimately just plain cynical. ..."
    "... I recall seeing the German film Mephisto, with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauers artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. ..."
    "... Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. ..."
    "... I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didnt feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the right philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. ..."
    "... in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow ..."
    "... he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region. ..."
    "... He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilarys idiotic tilt to the Pacific policy which is stupidly tin eared about Chinas genuine geopolitical concerns. ..."
    "... He could have said no to the Saudis idiotic attack on Yemen. ..."
    "... He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russias genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin. ..."
    "... He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists). ..."
    "... These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didnt do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic. ..."
    "... PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teachers pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind. ..."
    "... Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962). – Joe Firestone ..."
    "... incompletes ..."
    "... I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. ..."
    "... I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. ..."
    "... There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesnt call. Not even colleagues in his own party. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power. ..."
    "... I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... failing upwards has been part of Barrys compensation package. ..."
    "... Its part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president… ..."
    "... all of Bubbas charisma couldnt overcome Barrys shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday. ..."
    "... some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist ..."
    "... A true narcissist wouldnt be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists dont back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do. ..."
    "... Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with narcissistic rage. ..."
    "... Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissists self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972. ..."
    "... Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin. ..."
    "... I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required. ..."
    "... Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car– Drone bomb Obamas kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others and Hillary and Barack are war criminals . ..."
    "... America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... He is the designated spokesmodel for the love me Im a liberal wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the proud to be an asshole wing) ..."
    "... Obamas disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead theyre doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They dont seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them. ..."
    "... Oh, and another tell that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase Russias land grab in Ukraine. No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a grab . ..."
    "... Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy. ..."
    "... In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ..."
    "... I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didnt point out the snipers and hand him a script. ..."
    "... Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for. ..."
    "... Obama is best understood as a CIA project since his early teens. hes been groomed ..."
    "... I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history. ..."
    "... TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. Thats more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and its not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil. By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Winston Smith , January 2, 2016 at 4:12 am

    If I was passing out grades, with the TPP project, Obama gets a big fat F-

    Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind!

    Jill Stein's got my vote if Uncle Bernie isn't on the ticket! In my humbe opinion of course!

    James Levy , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Almost all commentary in the US mass media (which Alternet is on the fringes of) has as basic assumptions two memes: "compared to the Republicans" and "in the real world." I think if we want to be honest that we must say compared to a President Cruz or President Santorum, Obama looks fairly good. And as the commenter notes about Paris, in "the real world" tens of millions of Americans take it for granted that the job of the President is to "keep us safe" by slaughtering foreigners in sufficient numbers so that they fear us. Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel "safe".

    Here, our criteria are different. We have both a broader picture of what is happening, what was and is possible (we could be wrong about the extent of what's possible, but that's another argument), and what the potential options are. All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president (opinions differ, even around here). Objectively, I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance.

    On a personal note, all this horror is affecting me personally and sending me into flights of rage. This also hurts the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the "angry white guy" vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. I know that global warming and gun violence have me so upset that my own judgment is at times distorted, although I can't have much truck with anyone who isn't deeply upset by these phenomena. And the old academic stance of radical objectivity and dispassion really can be a pose and socially sterile–leadership and mobilizing people is rarely all about dispassionate objectivity and pulling one's punches with neutral language. It all leaves me baffled as to the way ahead.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Jim Levy: An excellent comment. As always, you argue carefully and even use unfashionable words like "dispassionate." (And how many blogs these days have commenters who might use the word "probity?")

    On a personal note: I don't believe in hope, which is a theological virtue. By and large, it serves Christian eschatology, which is why I became suspicious of the decidedly un-religious Obama and his use of it. (Not right away. It took me till after the first inauguration and the Cabinet of re-treads.) And I am not persuaded the arc of history bends toward justice in the United States of America, which may be what makes the country exceptional. American crassness has defeated even its greatest prophets, not just Martin Luther King but Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, and Sinclair Lewis.

    Yesterday, I had an open house to begin the year, and we touched on insurance. Many of my friends are free lances or self-employed owners of small businesses. We touched on what has happened here in Illinois, collectively blanched, and then discussed the fact that after 19 years of free lance I took a job. It is a plum job, and it has health benefits. ACA is going to grind down the middle class, and the happy talk of extended coverage doesn't talk about the crappiness, the insulting crappiness, of the policies.

    I suspect that major change with regard to global warming, peace, and conversion to a new economy will not come from the United States . You'd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. So the solutions are going to come from smaller, odder places, just as mammals were a small and odd group when they arose, years ago. Portugal is intriguing, as is Norway. Sweden is trying in ways that the U.S. just won't do. And even Japan changes in remarkable ways. And I would never rule out Brazil.

    Recommended reading: It may be the moment for Cavafy, who knew about decadent societies and the feeling of loss. See "Waiting for the Barbarians" and "Ithaca."

    Yves Smith Post author , January 2, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    DLG,

    You may know that some interpretations of the Pandora's Box myth have the release of "Hope" at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 6:21 am

    Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame "obstructionist" Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 am

    You got it. Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little "good things" he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it.

    If they were serious, the Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses . It's the lack of good jobs that is causing the implosion of society. And that's on Obama and the Democrats who didn't turn things around when they had the chance.

    TPP is the big tell for Obama. He's fighting for that like nothing else.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    All of the "Incompletes" belong in the "Failures" column. And the "Successes"? ACA belongs in the "Failures" column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the "Central Banks" column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet.

    Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as "diplomacy" , recall that Jimmy Carter went 4 whole years without a single shot fired in anger, now THAT's diplomacy. And please point me to one single solitary foreign policy "success", I suppose you'd have to mention Cuba and Iran, Cuba was a gimme and it's far from clear that the Iran rapprochement has succeeded and is a net "win" for the US given the witches brew of the ME.

    Obama wins my coveted "Worst_President_Ever" award , and yes I'm counting Andrew Johnson and Millard Fillmore. He simply normalized everything we hated about Bush, from Permanent War to unbridled corporo-fascism to a free pass for Wall St to unlimited spying that would make the Stasi drool. And no mention of the War on Whistleblowers. Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? C'mon people…we know a "good" president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum.

    I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: "I think he's a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But he's got a passable jump shot, so there's that".

    david s , January 2, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    It's hard to imagine anyone who's a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincoln's footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers' power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers' power, Obama is the agent of corporate power.

    Larry , January 2, 2016 at 8:11 am

    The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you.

    Especially at a time of economic crisis. But then when you deliver nothing for the largest block of voters, you quickly disenfranchise them and they either change their vote or don't bother to vote at all. The Senatorial elections in Massachusetts were a good barometer for Obama's quick loss of appeal. We had a tightly contested race between our former Attorney General, Martha Coakley, and Scott Brown for senate. Coakley was an awful candidate who was a somewhat effective AG, but had no personality or desire to run a strong campaign. Scott Brown was a fluff candidate who had been a local state representative.

    When the race was clearly close due to the democrats failed policy and the potential for Scott Brown to be a deciding vote against Obamacare, Obama himself came and stumped for Coakley. A sitting president who had won an overwhelming majority of the vote in Massachusetts could do little to bring up Coakley's flagging campaign.

    Scott Brown was elected and had a largely feckless few years in office. Now look who sits in that Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren, who one could say has stood up to Obama's largest policies and is by no means a democratic insider. So this is to say that most democrats or temporary Obama supporters were quickly disillusioned when the president they got didn't match the marketing promises they received on TV. But Obama doesn't care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth.

    craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. The "failures and incompletes" remind me of GWB's aweshucks moments. Iran needs to be moved from the Big Successes category to the aweshucks column now. Because, aweshucks, furry faced crazy mullahs. If only they were more like bankers, corporate America and the security state – where we could control them better?

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 6:52 am

    A few months ago on a thread here I asked generally what people thought actually motivated Obama – what makes him tick as a person – he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton, or a captive of his upbringing like Bush. I got some really interesting answers, its a pity I can't find them now. I don't believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is – there is enough evidence from the first 2 years or so of his presidency that he was genuinely trying to do the right thing by the economy and in the Middle East, but the speed with which he retreated into an establishment shell at the first sign of trouble was remarkable and disturbing. I suspect that for someone thought of as a 'thinker', he seems to have a lack of real self awareness.

    I'm less cynical than some about his motives with Obamacare, drones and TPP. I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. I've met very educated, progressive-minded people, who will defend strongly some very regressive policies on the basis that 'yes, they are not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction, anything else is not politically feasible'. And yes, I used to think like that (NC being one of my big educators). It sounds pretentious to say people like that are not 'enlightened' yet, but to an extent it is true. It took me many years to shake off the assumptions of my own education (conservative) and upbringing (conservative). Quite simply, I think Obama isn't bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. You can see it in his pre-presidential writings – he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified 'smart' people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do.

    But back to the point – I agree with Yves that this article is surprisingly generous to Obama, and given that it comes from the left, it shows that his natural charm works even on people who should know better. I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. I'm particularly horrified at his supposed environmentalism – he has done absolutely nothing that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into doing. I believe that deep down he has a natural distaste for 'regular folks'. In theory he wants to help them, but he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Yet, I do think Obama is quite bright, with a subtle wit and a profound understanding of oppression. I read parts of one of his books, and his poetic way of exploring how the poor on Chicago's South side live was truly moving. Which makes his transition to the dark side even more troubling.

    That's why I think he's ultimately just plain cynical. What makes him tick? He's one of the most powerful men in the world, and he has plenty of enablers in the "intelligentsia" and on media outlets like NPR and the New York Times to convince him that he's some sort of great compromiser, a martyr for the Middle Path. I really do think Obama thinks he's just so damn reasonable, if only he didn't have to content with Congress and "bitter working class people." Ha. You're right, when he had both houses, he didn't exactly push for Wall Street prosecutions and regulations, did he? But why would he invest emotionally in that version of himself, which is the highly unflattering portrait of somebody who sold his soul?

    After awhile, you buy into the narrative which both enables, and is flattering, to you. And I don't think brilliance makes you immune to that, not when you have access to all of that power. The mind is a flexible thing, and even smart people can just create new stories which are validating.

    I recall seeing the German film "Mephisto," with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. I wouldn't underestimate what access to power and money can do. I suspect that Alexis Tsipras wanted to sincerely help his fellow Greeks out of economic devastation. However, the Troika has way more goodies to give him, than Greece ever could. So, why wouldn't he be seduced?

    Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. To me, his chilling asides (like droning rivals to his daughter's favourite pop group, sharing his contempt for the angry poors, or his story about decrepit world leaders peeing themselves) reveal somebody who has lost touch with his humanity and has become dangerously self-satisfied. Jerry Seinfeld shared that "power corrupts." Did Obama recognize himself in that equation? Does he even care anymore? Either way, he has a very lucrative future career in speeches and publishing, so I think he'll be just fine. Leave it to the plebes, those pesky consciences.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 9:07 am

    @inverness, I think you are generally right about that. I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didn't feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the 'right' philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. But I've always suspected this was instinctual rather than calculated with Obama, but its hard to be sure. But one thing that immediately struck me when I was reading his books was his huge lack of curiosity about economics and science – there was nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate he gave any thought whatever to those subjects.

    I do think that he (along with his close advisors) see themselves as 'the grown-ups in the room' and bulwarks against 'the crazies'. Supporting drone strikes can be seen as 'grown up' policy when you are constantly dealing with hawks. But in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow . As an obvious example where he could have made a very real difference without too much political issues, he could have reached out more to progressive governments in South and Central America, but he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region.

    • He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilary's idiotic "tilt to the Pacific' policy which is stupidly tin eared about China's genuine geopolitical concerns.
    • He could have said 'no' to the Saudi's idiotic attack on Yemen.
    • He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russia's genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin.
    • He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists).

    These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didn't do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teacher's pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind.

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. He certainly lacks the iconoclastic/rebellious streak which you see in brilliant minds like Noam Chomsky, unless he's disciplined enough to keep that under wraps for opportunistic reasons.

    Left in Wisconsin , January 2, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington.

    Well said.

    skippy , January 2, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Methinks this describes Obama to a 'T'

    "Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962)." – Joe Firestone

    Skippy…. a product of environmental conditioning which was mentored in the early stages of political – life – by where the currant paradigm could be extended and advanced.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Instead, one of his earliest initiatives – and remember, this marks the use of his earliest political capital in May 2009 – indefinite detention. I was beyond horrified and have regretted voting for him since that day.

    Indefinite Detention = the real Barack Obama.

    1 Kings , January 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Or siding with the telecoms sanctioning surveillance the first week he was official. Or Summers and Geithner. Or the great O-Care insurance sell out. Or pretending he was going after the banksters. Or Fracking. Or, Or, Or.

    By the way, "The Great Droner' by one of the commenters above is genius. Certainly applies in a multitude of ways.

    participant-observer-observed , January 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Notice your litany of or, or, or-s exemplify how nearly all of the so-called incompletes are actually failures (although we can count Congress and Senate as whole class failures).

    I couldn't even read about the so-called economic recovery and bank bailouts by holding my nose. NC readers would need Dramamine (polite way if saying it).

    Nevertheless, I have had a few dreams about informal meetings with Bho, and while i seem to have tried to give him some guidance, he was always charming and amicable…maybe simple good manners is enough to score with excellence.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    PK and Inverness: Astute comments, very thought provoking. I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. I believe, though, that the writer was referring to ceremonial kingship. Obama as embodying a symbolic kind of power.

    I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. Surely, the video-kill of Osama bin Laden is detached (and immoral, but let's not go there yet)–especially publishing photos of the control room. This detachment evidently continues into retail politics. If he isn't giving a grand speech, he doesn't want to have to shake hands. There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesn't call. Not even colleagues in his own party.

    The detachment devolves into a certain designed lack of excellence. He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. The endless droning about his background as a professor of constitutional law (it's an article of faith among his fan club) is belied by his policies (Guantanamo, drone killings, the extrajudicial killing and disposal of OBL). Yet he was so detached as a con law prof that he neglected to publish articles or books about the U.S. Constitution. Who did he influence? No one is ever quoted as saying that the class was good or that Obama has any kind of constitutional theories. Again, he's the Javanese prince, ceremonial, detached, waiting to rule. He's like an ever-shiny-and-new M.B.A.

    He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power.

    I owe Geraldine Ferraro an apology–isn't she the one who was hushed for saying something like, So he gave one good speech? And the whole kerfuffle about the location of the Obama library, with the many sites? Isn't the presidential library supposed to be at the person's "home," and does Obama have a home?

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. When Europeans, in particular Germans, find you too reserved…this also speaks to your theory of detachment, albeit on a social level.

    Martha Retallick , January 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wait a minute. Did I just read that? Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is? Yeesh!

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    "He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done." Yet, like many business people, failing upwards has been part of Barry's compensation package.

    It's part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president…

    optimader , January 2, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Clinton's natural skill has been his adept, and presumably disingenuous ability to insightfully focus and project empathy toward people, make them think he has their interests. Combined with an ability to triangulate opportunity, this is why he is such a excellent grifter BClinton's naturally ability to interact and ingratiate seems to me to be exactly the skillset BHO is utterly void of.

    I think IN GENERAL, one on one most people have a hard time not liking BClinton. It is what it is.

    OTOH, other than BHO's true believers, most of whom probably are of relatively modest means other than the Hollywood liberal dilettante sort that want the superficial interaction w/ the first half black POTUS, I don't really see BHO pulling off a BClinton scale payday..do you?

    His narcissistic nature will inhibit that. So ok some BOD opportunity, maybe some foundation at UofC?, but who in the serious old money crowd will want to engage him as a peer and for what reason?

    He kinda has the charisma of a POTUS version of Alberto Gonzalez.

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    You may be right, but then again all of Bubba's charisma couldn't overcome Barry's shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday.

    And FWIW, 'serious old money' looks like a pittance compared to the serious new money whose bacon Barry saved. Besides, I don't really see Bubba rolling with the old fogies club, I see him hobnobbing with Bono. In any case, we shall find out soon enough just how much Barry's service is worth.

    Optimader , January 2, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Serious old money is a misnomer indeed, makes that serious money, that said i doubt Bono lets a nickel go too easily. Wall st looks to future opportunity will be yesterdays fish wrapper in a year. On 2098, that's a pretty good surrogate for HRC charm. I just dont see BHO being a wheeler dealer which in the end is about all BClinton has to offer anyone,

    Still such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    "such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address" Dude, this fact harshest my mellow every time. Throw in the inevitability of His lie-Barry coming to the neighborhood and I completely crumple into a bottomless pit of self-pity. The thought of the hordes of 0bots making the pilgrimage to Hyde Park in the coming years is simply unbearable.

    Sam Adams , January 2, 2016 at 9:01 am

    What motivates Obama? I'd venture his upbringing as a half black outsider licking the Windows who now sees himself at the main house dining room table.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton

    You're kidding, right? Of course some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist could be wrong, but "clearly isn't"–where does that come from? In fact I'll just quote you later in your comment.

    he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Narcissist.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    A true narcissist wouldn't be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists don't back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    To punish Narcissus, the avenging goddess Nemesis made Narcissus fall hopelessly in love with his own beautiful face as he saw it reflected in a pool. As he gazed in fascination, unable to remove himself from his image, he gradually pined away. At the place where his body had lain grew a beautiful flower, honoring the name and memory of Narcissus.

    –MS Encarta

    If it quacks like a duck…..

    nycTerrierist , January 2, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with 'narcissistic rage'.

    from wiki:

    "Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.

    Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden 'true self' has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist has a fall from grace, such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.

    Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Obama isn't just the object if the Obot devotion, he is the biggest Obot of them all.

    Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin'.

    Universal health care was never an end goal for either President. Being put in the history books as a bipartisan hero was their goal. Healthcare was a means to an end. They picked what they perceived as the easiest path to what they could call change. Bill handed off responsibility to his never elected wife with no relevant back ground in hopes no one would attack her. The difference between Bill/Obama and other narcissists (even Bernie is full of himself. He thinks he can have George Washington's old job) is they don't grasp the difference between quality and brand.

    Jim Haygood , January 2, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Big incompletes : playing more rounds of golf during two terms than any other president.

    FORE!

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    He has a place in the history books as "the first black president" nevermind that he was a complete disaster. Next up we will have "the first woman president", same outcome (hopefully not much worse, that would be difficult but given her politics and her backers she's already in the runner-up spot for my "Worst_President_Ever" award..

    verifyfirst , January 2, 2016 at 7:11 am

    I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required.

    As a professor of constitutional law, I would have guessed Obama would have at least been strong on civil liberties, but he was not.

    Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car–"Drone bomb Obama's kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others" and "Hillary and Barack are war criminals".

    Sorry if these are "too weak".

    They are magnetic, so I can take them off when others are in the car with me–I worry about being attacked by an enraged Prius driver here in "progressive" Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Brooklin Bridge , January 2, 2016 at 7:59 am

    A long post could be done on the subject of American sports, football in particular, as self mandated training wheels to our corresponding political duopoly; America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. For short, we could call it, Concussions – USA .

    The pluses this author attributes to a morally and ethically bankrupt individual who with overwhelming shock and awe provided by the system described above, Concussions – USA , conned Americans into making him president of their sometime democracy would simply dissolve into public ridicule and laughter under any other system (unless it had America's big gun pointed right at it's head).

    Kokuanani , January 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    I'm curious – but too lazy to go over there & find out - how regular Alternet readers are replying to this fluff.

    diptherio , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Reaction there is largely similar to that here: Obama is a failure on nearly every count, is actually a conservative, and this "report card" is giving him too much of a pass. Encouraging!

    Here's a representative comment from dave3137:

    Oh, yes, and let's not forget the guy who stood by his Wall Street pals (Geithner, et al.) and told the banksters "help me to help you," while letting "Main Street" drown in the crisis they did NOT create. And let's not forget how this administration let people go because Breitbart and Fox threw up a smokescreen. And let's not forget that this administration is trying desperately to shove a "trade deal" (or three) down our throats that have almost zero advantages for ordinary Americans. And let's not forget how this Administration's justice department failed to prosecute ANY banksters but managed to exact a few minutes' worth of profits as "fines" - while bragging these were "record-breaking." Oh, and remember how Obama spoke out so forcefully against the "death panel" crap? And remember how "single payer" disappeared after big pharma had a White House meeting? And remember ending "endless war"? Closing Guantanamo? And oh yeah, let's not forget to give "credit" for "the most transparent administration in US history."

    Llewelyn Moss , January 2, 2016 at 8:27 am

    Obamacare, a Big Success. hahaha.
    It mandated participation in a system that is based on horrific price gouging.

    Stopping the great recession, a Big Success.
    Yeah the Morbidly Rich did nicely by transferring their losses to the taxpayers. Thanks Bush-Bama.

    After those two, I can't take the list seriously.

    It's either Bernie or I go full Green Party from here on out.

    Glen , January 2, 2016 at 8:54 am

    I don't consider Obamacare or our "economic" recovery to be successes unless, 1) you're rich enough not to need Obamacare and 2) you're rich enough to benefit from the "economic" recovery. Nobody else benefited aside from those using the Medicare expansion, not the middle class, and most definitely not the poor.

    Anybody who still votes Democratic based on "this is the best we can get" is admitting that our democracy is broke and they are getting screwed. One of the required actions to fix our democracy is to quit voting for the Democratic party based on that self defeating rational. I will vote for Bernie, I will not vote for Hillary.

    Arizona Slim , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I'm with you, Glen and Lleweyen.

    And I'm meeting quite a few Republicans who don't care for Hillary or Trump. Tells me that the Sanders campaign has a huge opportunity to pick up votes.

    mad as hell. , January 2, 2016 at 8:58 am

    You won't find a better entertainer than B.O. I think in the last week I saw references to him hiking on some travel channel and also doing a segment with Jerry Seinfeld. Come on folks he's giving America what it wants in it's screen captured environment

    I'll never forget the time my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant and across from me was a family or I at least assume it was a family of father, son and daughter. Teenage Son was playing some game on a hand held device. Early twenty something daughter was texting on a smart phone. Old school pop had his head tilted up and watching some show on the tv. I did not hear one word uttered that entire time by the Screen family.

    Obama knows we are a nation of screen watchers and being the entertainer that he is covers the part exceptionally well. Although I have lost interest in watching his shtick anymore.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    He is the designated spokesmodel for the "love me I'm a liberal" wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the "proud to be an asshole" wing) , and as reward for staying on script he gets to enjoy the considerable privileges of office–privileges that, according to plugged in commentators like Pat Lang, he enjoys greatly.

    Obama's only noteworthy accomplishment is providing the country with it's first African American President and for that he will always deserve some credit. He himself may be a big phony, but the pride this accomplishment has given to many black people isn't. One can also say that in a long line of Presidential mediocrities Obama is merely the latest. Clearly it's our American system that is deeply flawed and unable to cope with ever more serious problems.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Obama loves the limelight, but he's going on shows, not drawing the crowds himself. Jerry Seinfeld isn't edgy or provocative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he can't say no to the President, in a way a Carlin might, more mock the person to their face the way a Colbert might if he were so motivated. I didn't watch the Seinfeld appearance, but I've heard he is the nicest celebrity to meet.

    Obama has recognized that the screens which once featured him are no longer tuned in and he's searching for attention. Every Presidential candidate is inherently an anti-Obama candidate.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Yeah Yves I almost lost my lunch when I read this on Alternet yesterday. But I guess its par for the course from the Dem/liberal establishment. For better or worse, Obama is their guy, just like Hillary will be their girl and IOKIADDI (its OK if a Democrat does it). Neoliberal Heritage Foundation/Romney health insurance "reform"? No problem! It's a "Big Success"! Turning a blind eye to the largest, most destructive white-collar crime wave in our history? Well, he had "no choice". "Foaming the runway" for the Wall St perps while screwing ordinary workers, distressed homeowners and fraud victims? File it under 'saving the economy". Continuity (and worse) with the Bush/Cheney foreign policy and "War on Terrah"? Well, that's just "keeping use safe from the 21st century boogey-men that fuel the MIC and the warfare consensus among the "serious people". And I haven't even gotten to economic inequality remaining the same (or even worsening), the TPP, persecution of whistle blowers, inaction of student loans, promotion of Arctic oil drilling while pretending to be serious about climate change and on and on.

    Obama's disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead they're doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They don't seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them.

    Until the Dem/liberal establishment wakes up I'm afraid that not much will change. I think its better to focus less on worrying about which establishment apparatchik will win the presidency to changing the electoral process so that more voices are heard (opening up the debates) which I hope will get more voters engaged in participating. That's the only way to take down the establishment that produces empty suit infotainment candidates like Obama and Clinton (not to mention the GOP troglodytes).

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Seems we/U.S. has become content grading our leaders withing paradigms of mediocrity. Seems like yesterday, the 2k election mess… recounts in Florida, Jeb's state troopers impeding black voters getting to voting booths, the black box voting machines producing more votes in Repub precincts then there were registered voters, Kathryn Harris (was Jeb "doing her"?) exerting "authority" ignoring law….

    Scotus' decision remanding consideration of Florida recounts back to Florida Supreme Court was a calculated political decision to run out the legal clock, as several key SCOTUS members have explicitly and implicitly acknowledged. And then Tom Delay's illegal thugs bused into Florida on Tax Payer's dime, to thwart recounts.

    BushCo and winger chest thumping but blind bravado intimidating their way to an election "victory" demonstrated the same blindness they executed in their other disasters: ignoring Enron, the lies behind Iraq, "Mushroom Clouds" and Israel's crimes levelling Lebanon, bailing out Banks while U.S. economy crumbled….

    This was biggest political wakeup call of my life, and now 15+ years in the rear view mirror. AFAIC, the influences that allowed that to happen have gone unchanged. The U.S. tail still wags the dog. The Bush years were an illusory horror, setting the U.S. and world back in almost unfathomable ways.

    Obama was elected with Bush approval ratings the lowest of ANY president in history. Many of the hardest of hard right wingers I knew who treated their neighbors who criticized Bush as moral enemies, had come around to grudingly acknowledge he was an…. asshole.

    Obama had a mandate. He had an opportunity to change directions hugely had he the courage, vision and grasp of reality many "hoped". Despite many capable economic advisers after he won but before the inauguration, my heart sank when he announced nomination of Geithner: eg. someone guaranteed to "fix" things by moving piles of money around, but not remove the people who stole so much and deceived (literally) the world banking system. He instead gave them a get out of jail card, and re-filled their bank accounts and "trusted" them to "fix" things.

    This is my take on BO's "hope".

    He has done little more then continue in Bush's worst foibles, and in many ways looks to me like the world is worse off now then when he arrived. The ME mess has grown, and false premises under lie our disastrous polices there. In both US media and current candidates, these delusions seem to be accepted fact.

    I take issue with author's (similarly assumed untruth) "Russia's land grab in Ukraine": that utterly ignores all the other forces (US and Israel policy especially) at play there with no regard for local interests: another example of "US Interests", no matter how selfish or destructive to a given area… if expressed by the White House, it must be so.

    WRT authors bullet points, I take issue with 2 items in particular:

    • – Energy: BO nominated the right guy (Dr. Chu): he knew the "territory" and was on the cutting edge of the science… both from climate aspect and energy generation alternatives. Obama ignored him, subjugated Chu's best advice to "more pressing" issues dominated by Geithner recommendation ("we can't afford energy until economy is fixed"). But there was no hope of "fix", and "kicking the can" down the road on clean energy is the same as learning to "live with cancer". Chu left quietly, no wonder.
    • – Embracing Diplomacy: I'm glad he did Cuba… didn't see that coming. Decades overdue. But… despite our cascading disasters in ME, BO has learned little. Putin is the "threat", when evidence is overwhelming Russia's efforts in Syria are turning the tide there. Biggest contributors to Syria mess have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia (they've funded ISIS): US policy ignores this. Putin has reached out… repeatedly. Love to see Putin and BO (or next president) together, in public… for a week: open, frank discussions where the public can decide, not "policy makers" and advisers looking for an advantage for their petroleum client. Seems backroom discussions on Kerry's latest tour are moving towards some acknowledgment of this, but just as crooks on wall street still run the show, we'll never root out biggest cause of foolish Sunni/Shia endless conflicts without acknowledging those who fuel it. Again, worst players in this arena: Saudis and Turkey (Ergodan).

    I guess I'll just leave it there… could write a book on this, but so what? I think BO had one of greatest opportunities to change course of America in huge ways, and in ways that were badly needed for US' and world's future. He missed most of them.

    And at the risk of sounding racist, I'm disappointed at so many of our High Profile African Americans so many look up to (Oprah, Denzell…) who speak of BO with pride seemingly on advancement socially we could elect a Black president, but have ignored these larger issues. I think they could have done far better, to press him.

    When it's all said and done, from where I site, we and the world are moving far too slowly and blindly to do what's needed to ensure a bright future for a lot more people. Our most pressing problems have been kicked down the road, and hardly acknowledged. I see not one current candidate even close to addressing things the way that's needed.

    Just not enough courage, clarity and truth… period.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism. Instead, Obama revealed himself as a neoliberal ideologue who attempted to destroy progressivism and, in doing so, revived conservatism. Obama's deceit squandered the last good chance for the nation and humanity to roll back global warming. For that alone, history will condemn him.

    As for his "substantive accomplishments," the only one even worth considering is his use of diplomacy. But, as usual with Obama, there is sleight of hand. Yes, he has shown reluctance to enter shooting wars. But at the same time, he doesn't hesitate to use drones and economic weapons to inflict untold punishment and generate evermore strife and create new generations of people who hate America. Which brings me to another point about Obama: apart from achieving his neoliberal dystopia, Obama's primary goal appears to be that he look good and be respected. (That weakness is why the Democrats and the Left might have inhibited Obama had they not defended and enabled him.) From Obamacare to fracking to economic royalism to race relations, Obama wants credit now and doesn't care that everything he has set in motion is a ticking time bomb.

    All things considered, Obama is the worst president in American history. He was supposed to be the corrective, like FDR, showing the genius once again of the American Experiment. Obama had the mandate and he had the power but he was a liar and a fraud. Obama is an historical failure, one from which I'm not sure we can recover.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 10:40 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism.

    He never wanted to change the system – he merely wanted to be the guy who presided over it.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    +1

    People who were paying attention, which I guess weren't a whole lot, saw pretty early that Obama was running to the right of Hillary. There was never much of a systemic "change" promise in what he had to offer.

    He offered a change from W's bloody bluster and hope of escape from Cheney's visceral contempt for basic decency, and sure enough… that's about as far as the Hope and Change thing went.

    Policy-wise, millions of Americans were forced into poverty from which most will never emerge. That was true under W and that is true under Obama. Economic policies are approximately consistent, favoring the financial sector at the expense of workers and social services. The Obamacare insurance scam might well have been implemented by a Republican president with or without a Democratic congress.

    Foreign policy is different, but mostly because the failures of the Bush/Cheney model were monumental and unsustainable. Foreign policy is marginally less terrible, marginally less bloody, but it's no less imperialist, no less absurd, no less foolhardy.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Obama is the worst president in American history

    Oh fer gawdssake. Everybody knows that W was the worst president in American history, "all things considered." Obama is merely the worst since W.

    Feh.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I disagree. Bush was an abject failure in large part because he was pursuing a doctrine that was dead. Conservatism was spent yet Bush insisted upon it until it failed floridly. But we've had other failed presidents in out history and we've recovered. In a democracy like ours, the ballot is supposed to provide the corrective to such political failure. And that's exactly what Obama promised. Hope and change, remember that? But Obama lied - utterly and fundamentally - and, in doing so, Obama wrecked what remained of the Democratic Party, sent our polity into a tailspin and - most ominously - set us on a likely irreversible course of calamitous global warming. All things considered, that makes Obama the worst president in American history, IMNSHO.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Bush/Cheney were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They were radicals, especially Cheney, who saw that his mission in life was to redeem the legacy of the Nixon-Ford debacle - by killing and displacing millions in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan, creating as much chaos overseas as he could, and destroying what was left of a semi-egalitarian economy.

    Pleased and proud of his accomplishments he is to this day. At least for his part W knows better than to crow.

    MaroonBulldog , January 2, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    By increasing the population covered by health insurance, Obamacare also increases demand for physicians to treat the additionally covered. Where are all those physicians going to come from?

    Last year, the primary care physician who had been treating me for ten years resigned from the practice group, and I received a letter asking me to select a physician from new members of the practice group, who were now accepting patients. When I called, I was given a list of six young physicians to choose from: three graduated fromf medical schools in India, one from Pakistan, one from Colombia, and one from a local osteopathic medical school here in the United States.

    Apparently, once consequence of Obamacare is a brain drain of medical practitioners from the rest of the world, mostly trained at the rest of the world's expense.

    frosty zoom , January 2, 2016 at 10:52 am

    first, a big shout out to our buddies at the nsa! happy new year, guys!

    now, how could someone as evil as barack obama receive anything but an expulsion from the high school of human governance?

    if only he'd stick to doodling on his desk..

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Emotional attachment, and breaking away from the pack is hard. I never liked the President. I thought his speeches were word salad and his books were boring and full of conventional wisdom. I have no problem pointing out his mistakes. If you thought the Preside the was a once in a lifetime figure in 2004, how would you feel if you decided to read his 2004 DNC speech?

    -Plenty of Democrats don't want to become "racist unicorn chasers who want equality today" or acknowledge that the people they said were loons in 2009 for suggesting Obama didn't pass rainbows after eating were right and received undue criticism. There was a considerable amount of nastiness directed towards Obama critics who dared point out that guys like Rahm Emmanuel were disasters waiting to happen.

    There is a good element of the population who has internalized an acceptable left-center-right view of politics. For them judging Obama as a failure would mean judging the left and center as failures. They have lives where they might not know the name and general background of every Senator and just hear a simple Republican/Democrat pie fight. They then assume he GOP is dastardly clever to have foiled Obama and his wonderful plans. Obama critics and even potential critics were drowned out for so long the echo chamber doesn't repeat a narrative of the Team Blue Reagan admirer desperately wants to be a Republican.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Oh, and another "tell" that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase "Russia's land grab in Ukraine." No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a "grab".

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Yep. That was one point in the article where I checked out mentally. The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy.

    tegnost , January 2, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Successes? 1.) medicaid clawbacks 2.)trillions instead of billions for wall st. 3.)reproductive rights for same sex couples 4.)drone diplomacy 5.)ice free passage through the arctic
    Looks an awful lot like the "failures" list are the successes, no need to comment further
    Incomplete 11.) more people living in tents, true, but not everyone yet 12.) H1b, H2b 13.) less gun violence, yep mm hmmm 14.) shoot the potentially violent 15.) go on a congressional junket to israel, but then come back to the house of reps, don't like, stay there forever, what would that accomplish?
    tegnost reporting from LJ, the land of no (well, extremely lame) public transportation and unabashed HRC supporters. Think I'll sit outside the breakers and watch the world go by…

    blurtman , January 2, 2016 at 11:41 am

    The president repeatedly lied to Americans early on in his first term when he said that the banks had committed no crimes. The president's failure was not merely a failure in prosecuting and jailing bankers, it was much more:

    1.) illustrating to all the undeniable existence of a two-tiered justice system. There are folks doing time for money laundering, you know.
    2.) not re-establishing faith in the US financial system.

    Perhaps it was a designed plan to shine a light on the corruption and hypocrisy that is Amerika, but I kind of doubt it.

    Warf Rat , January 2, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ……….too bad nobody is paying attention. One could say that all the failures of Obama's presidency have done a good job shinning a light on all that is wrong with our country.

    Chauncey Gardiner , January 2, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    The terminology "Coddling corporate America" under the "Big Failures" list is much too charitable to this administration. This hasn't been about inviting a big campaign contributor to a sleepover at the White House, and the issues are ongoing.

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    More succinctly, he's the Wall St Manchurian candidate and any benefits we the people have derived from his Presidency have only been "trickle down" at best. He lied at every turn to the American people to become President in 2008 all the while knowing that once in office his masters on Wall St would be well served. He's smart enough to fool everyone that voted for him – is that ever worthy of praise by Democrats? No – only by the Republicans that he had emboldened. They must have been laughing their arses off when they saw how this hope and change Presidency was unfolding in the 1st week and every week since. He had exposed his Achilles heel the 1st week in office, appointing one Wall St veteran after the other and the REpugs saw this and attacked. The Republican party was on it's way out, their President had lied us into wars and into invading other countries, torture and war crimes. But Barack alone saved them from their fates, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. No, nothing about BO should get a passing grade. As he said to Hillary in 2008, the Presidency is just a figure head office (not an office for a leader). Figure head and trickle down voodoo economics, that's about all we the people got. Oh yeah, and don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never should have happened.

    CraaaaaaaazyChris , January 2, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    As I look back on the Obama presidency, his primary domestic achievement seems to be "Gay Lives Matter".

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    After major pressure and defeats in court. DADT was struck down before it was repealed, and Obama came out for gas marriage after fighting efforts against an anti-gay referendum in North Carolina.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script. After all, Kennedy was killed for not following his…We have been captive of the "deep state" for a long time. The business of America is the enabling of a global looting. Always has been, always will be.

    It was obvious from the appointment of Eric(Pardon Me)Holder, Timmy (what tax?)Geithner and Robert Gates that nothing was going to change and that hope had left the building. Maybe that was the point, that it was pointless to hope.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Or he was a pronounced Reagan admirer and claimed the right to bomb anywhere on the planet whenever he felt like it all along and you didn't listen?

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Well,

    I confess I voted for him in 2008 (with reservations). The "lesser of two weevils". And perhaps seduced by "Dreams from my Father". I didn't expect revolution, but I also allowed "hope" for a moment. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012. And I vote in EVERY election. But I can't forget Emma Goldman's wisdom, "If elections changed anything, they would make it illegal".

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never would have happened if he had been a man of his word. He owns those too. If the scale is A to F, I'd give him a G.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script.

    I was and I remain astonished at how Obama metamorphasized immediately after he won in 2007. I listened to a lot of Obama speeches in 2007 and I read his books and that Obama never stepped inside the White House. This transformation being so exquisitely executed, a suspicious mind might consider an orchestrated conspiracy. Maybe a rational mind, too, because the alternative explanation proves elusive.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    Alternative explanation: he's a skilled con artist.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Long before his inauguration, he was a made man. Ken Silverstein in Harper's wrote "Barack Obama Inc" back in 2006. Black Agenda Report and Paul Street knew him from Chicago. Adolph Reed Jr wrote earlier than that and then repeated it in 2008 in The Progressive.

    He's a vacuous opportunist.I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal. – See more at: http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508#sthash.hEiRFBaY.dpuf

    There was information early that he was the corporate pick, but people chose to put their fingers in their ears. It was the most frustrating time for me in my sojourn into politics. And it continues. I just had a new acquaintance tell me that Obama will go down as one of the great presidents. Sad.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    There was a devastating piece in the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/ before the election that laid out the corruption…Not exactly Breitbart. The story sank w/o a trace

    sid_finster , January 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I don't know how many O voters lurk here, but let me ask you this:

    When you voted for Obama in 2008, is this really what you expected?

    Steve from CT , January 2, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Three things stand out for me from Obama's first couple of months in office that indicated what kind of President he would be.

    1. Appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan. I would also throw in Sebelius as well. What did we expect from this crew of neoliberal thinkers. We got no prosecutions of Bush war criminals or Wall St criminals, bailout of banks but not Main St, "never let a crisis go to waste," privatization of schools, a health reform that will ultimately self destruct and many others mentioned here.
    2. Disappearance of the famed Obama multi million person mailing list which could have maybe made a huge impact on the next few Congressional and Senate elections. Why did this list go into hiding for way too many years.
    3. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for.

    And he didn't play golf with Speaker Boehner!!!!

    Pavel , January 2, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Well I unsubscribed from that Obama list about 3 months into his first term, already pissed off and disillusioned - Rahm's appointment and some other decision at the time was the prompt.

    However somehow Hillary's PAC got my name off it, and I got repeated donation requests from the Ready For Hillary people, without an "unsubscribe" option, which to me makes it borderline illegal spam.

    And recently I got an email from Harry Reid's group, on the same address. All very fishy, and extremely annoying.

    stinky , January 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Obama is best understood as a CIA "project" since his early teens. he's been groomed

    timbers , January 2, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history.

    Some posting here ridiculed me at the time on those other blogs for those statements. Now many comments sometimes paraphrase the same thought.

    TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. That's more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and it's not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying "Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil." By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    That article reminds me of the reason I left Alternet. FWIW, I used to be a dedicated commenter there. But during the campaign in 2012, they systematically rigged their coverage (coverage is far more important than endorsements), suppressing anything that made Obama look bad – more than any other liberal site I followed. The final straw was when a good article by one of their own writers was unceremoniously removed from the front page and relegated to a cubbyhole where you wouldn't find it unless you were looking for it. That made it clear there was an editorial judgement (probably by the publisher) to censor their reporting.

    I thought that was unforgivable, so when the election was past I made a fuss in as many comments as I could and then abandoned the site. They sell ads, so clicks are worth money to them, and I was providing a lot of clicks. At this point, I visit it only when NC provides a link I want to read. I doubt the publisher has changed.

    This article goes beyond "cautious" to the sort of coverup they committed in 2012 (personally, I don't think much of Rosenfeld). I'm not criticizing Yves for posting it – it's a good example of something or other, and generated a lot of discussion. But mainly, it's an example of the difference between NC and in-the-bag sites like Alternet or Salon, where I sometimes post links to NC articles just to be difficult. Did it today, on the article on Obamacare by Paul Rosenberg. Remarkably, that elicited a plug for NC from the author (Rosenberg – boy are those names easy to confuse)!

    Lambert Strether , January 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Ah yes. I remember Open Left from 2009 – 2010 very well… Just another career "progressive" site suppressing single payer advocacy because Obama. Of course, if they'd gone full on for single payer then, the ground would be prepared now for the real solution. So their tactics did real damage.

    Humanbean , January 2, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Hi Yevs,

    Happy! New Year. How about this assessment of Obama years in the Oval Office? I agree with what Thomas Frank has to say in this piece 100%

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpedoed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wall_street/

    [Jan 06, 2016] Pray For Us Libya Issues Cry For Help As ISIS Advances On Oil Fields

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
    "... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
    "... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
    "... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
    "... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
    "... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
    "... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
    "... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
    "... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."

    That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.

    The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.

    Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014," Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi."

    ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard told Bloomberg over the phone.

    Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"

    Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure, much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."

    "I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from local security from isolated towns."

    macholatte

    CHANGE YOU BETTER BEIEVE IN

    Flashback 2011: Hillary Clinton Laughs About Killing Moammar Gaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died!"

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Libya was Hillary's special project.

    SmedleyButlersGhost

    This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.

    The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap slime ball

    fleur de lis

    Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality you already have.

    John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.

    Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.

    They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks dirty.

    No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.

    Lumberjack

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-ma...

    I do not endorse anyone but...

    https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2012/12/19/the-african-union-an...

    __Usury__

    Darwin..

    ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' '....

    Blankone

    You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.

    It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the resources.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give consent for the destruction.

    Volkodav

    What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty

    froze25

    Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.

    kita27

    Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources.

    ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely.

    Bastiat

    And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.

    Hohum

    Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)

    Sanity Bear

    In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).

    Jack Burton

    First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.

    Jack Burton

    Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya, and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.

    falak pema

    well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.

    And they get : ISIS --

    Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.

    trader1

    we came, we saw, ...

    TeaClipper

    So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/28/obama-boasts-libya...

    replaceme

    We came, we saw, he died. Hillary C

    She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief. Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.

    RevIdahoSpud3

    I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited, "We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded, we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers. After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich! Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen oil has higher octane!

    Duc888

    Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya

    "We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.

    jldpc

    What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that out on their own?

    BarkingCat

    Lets see if I understand the plan.

    Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.

    Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.

    Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.

    Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.

    Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.

    Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists and other barbarians.

    When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:

    Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that has value ....oil production for example.

    [Jan 05, 2016] Ukrainians say farewell to Soviet champagne as decommunisation law takes hold

    Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of the story.
    Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes right.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
    "... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
    "... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
    "... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
    "... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
    "... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
    "... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
    "... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
    "... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
    "... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
    "... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
    "... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
    "... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
    "... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
    "... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
    "... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
    "... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
    "... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
    "... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
    "... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
    "... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
    "... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
    "... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
    "... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
    "... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
    "... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
    "... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
    "... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
    "... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
    "... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
    "... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
    "... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
    "... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
    "... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com
    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too...
    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:42
    Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism i am wondering...

    Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these days.

    Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after 1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power during official communism.

    Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now (also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.

    Benladan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:09
    There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland... Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that time of communism.
    ruudvan -> abecedadeda , 4 Jan 2016 20:18
    Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.

    The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.

    ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time.

    abecedadeda -> Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 22:54
    Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.

    However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea, Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries - look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than Communist China...

    I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.

    John Smith , 5 Jan 2016 01:10
    I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of corruption
    Good luck.

    Shad O , 4 Jan 2016 23:51

    law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian independence".

    I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two.

    CommieWealth , 4 Jan 2016 23:50
    This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As for the temptation to compare with post WW2 denazification in Germany, didn't the Soviet Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
    CommieWealth -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.

    Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!

    I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
    HollyOldDog -> luckyjohn , 5 Jan 2016 01:20
    Ukraine = a border, no real identity at all.

    How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.

    The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA.

    gbg , 4 Jan 2016 23:35
    Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland.
    Bosula -> jgbg 5 , Jan 2016 00:42
    And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s...
    AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 22:47
    Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
    ID125064 -> AGuenther , 4 Jan 2016 23:01

    And the longer this goes on the stronger Ukrainian identity becomes - symbolism is important.

    Bosula -> ID125064 , 5 Jan 2016 00:43
    Partially based on fascist support for Hitler in WW2 and the murder of Jews and Poles?
    hcm1975 , 4 Jan 2016 22:41
    The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance.
    Mark Court , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.

    Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were "de-communised" in the process. The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.

    La urence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 22:39
    Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused . The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid. New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming a reality.
    frombrussels -> Laurence Johnson , 4 Jan 2016 23:24
    ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
    John Smith -> Laurence Johnson , 5 Jan 2016 01:14
    The latest answer from the EU was: " We aren't ready, they aren't ready"
    Optimistic one for sure ))
    DiplomaticImmunity , 4 Jan 2016 22:06
    The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
    CapeBill , 4 Jan 2016 21:35
    I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
    Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:32
    obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.

    In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they never heard of the sex pistols et al?

    MichaelA12 -> Valencia1984 , 4 Jan 2016 21:41
    They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:31

    Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.

    It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real methode champenoise . The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.

    the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."

    What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too.

    If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.

    Putzik -> EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 21:51
    The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.

    The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.

    EugeneGur -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 22:18

    Each country can keep or reject what it likes.

    The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

    Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that way, my dear.

    But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft

    You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
    HollyOldDog -> Putzik , 5 Jan 2016 01:56
    In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
    Putzik -> HollyOldDog , 5 Jan 2016 02:25
    You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.

    There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan. So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.

    Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort to discredit Ukraine in Western media.

    laticsfanfromeurope, 4 Jan 2016 21:30
    Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely.
    rasquera -> laticsfanfromeurope , 4 Jan 2016 22:03
    What a vile, dishonest remark. But, of course, you think the Soviets were not as bad as the Na*is.
    TomFullery -> rasquera , 4 Jan 2016 22:23
    Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square.

    There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population.

    Gary Robinson , 4 Jan 2016 21:16
    Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history. Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration camps.
    Luschnig , 4 Jan 2016 20:52
    It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity.
    Gtardkgb , 4 Jan 2016 20:22
    Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
    Babeouf , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
    Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:20
    The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols.

    See: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/06/ukraine-anti-communist-laws-stir-controversy-150601054437645.html

    As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia.

    So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.

    There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

    I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.

    http://m.christianpost.com/news/germany-bans-islamic-state-propaganda-symbols-and-activities-126450 /

    John Smith -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 20:44
    I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0
    Luschnig -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:02
    The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
    mmmhhh888 -> Putzik , 4 Jan 2016 21:09
    You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.

    Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.

    slorter , 4 Jan 2016 20:19
    Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
    lkongo , 4 Jan 2016 19:52
    Dnipropetrovsk was Ekaterinoslav before Communist rule. Off course, Ukraine would not revert to original name, as it points to Katherine the Great.
    1917bolche , 4 Jan 2016 19:48
    Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
    wellmyword , 4 Jan 2016 19:44
    Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.

    Haven't they got anything better to do?

    The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why pick on them?

    Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.

    Free social health care, now that would be even better still.

    If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.

    Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.

    How controversial. No, not really.

    EugeneGur , 4 Jan 2016 19:40
    Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia.

    Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist heroes

    Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase - uneasy . Come on, those in Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine, Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.

    This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"

    Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing, what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.

    BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut" times.

    John Smith -> caliento , 4 Jan 2016 20:28
    Putin is busy with his Turkish friends now anyway, his current mission is to deprive Russians of all their traditional holiday destinations:

    Georgia - complete
    Ukrainian Black sea - complete
    Egypt - Done
    Turkey - In progress

    Benladan , 4 Jan 2016 19:12
    The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population (52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism" which have heard "farewell" too
    Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:47
    Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice?
    vr13vr , 4 Jan 2016 18:39

    Are they removing the monuments to the same Lenin who created the first state of Ukraine? Whey are weird bunch, those Ukrainians.

    Canigou , 4 Jan 2016 18:30
    Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically----

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukraine-economic-collapse /

    eckow , 4 Jan 2016 18:26
    The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games.

    In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others. EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy. The current markets in Russia are now closed.

    Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?

    BMWAlbert -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 19:32
    Just wait for the PL restitution proceedings in Lviv-Lwow-Lemberg....that will be interesting.
    Beckow -> BMWAlbert , 4 Jan 2016 20:45
    Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
    DiplomaticImmunity -> Beckow , 4 Jan 2016 22:28
    Brilliant and insightful.

    Thank you.

    Hanwell123 , 4 Jan 2016 18:11
    How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure. The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this government in power?
    Jonathan Stromberg -> Kata L , 4 Jan 2016 19:56
    Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.

    On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine now will have to be genuine.

    [Jan 05, 2016] http://www.unz.com/akarlin/new-year-predictions-for-2016/

    www.unz.com
    And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest average wages in Europe.

    Gabon with snow ? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!

    GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level

    ukraine-gdp-1990-2015

    As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level, has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom, at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).

    Back in 2010 , although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening 5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened to a projected 9% in 2015 – Ukraine has managed to slip to rock bottom .

    How does this look like on a more human level?

    Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces

    housing-construction-russia-ukraine-in-2014

    With a quarter of its population, Belarus is constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.

    The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its 5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.

    New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels

    ukraine-automobile-sales

    The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism, Ukrainian consumers were better off during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.

    And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they now make up for having even less butter than before with the Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.

    Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels

    ukraine-debt-to-gdp-ratio

    And this figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.

    Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies. This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign debt crises.

    To be fair, the IMF has indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately be averted.

    But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs who rule Ukraine continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing can be ruled out.

    Resumption of Demographic Collapse

    ukraine-crude-birth-rate-1988-2015

    Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent – it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted by the 2009 recession.

    Since then, however, they have plummeted – exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what it portended for the future.

    This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor). Here are the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:

    Births Deaths
    2013 350658 441331
    2014 354622 445236
    2015 329308 450763

    Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated, but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.

    The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.

    [Jan 04, 2016] MH17 crash: Dutch investigators to assess new study implicating Russian soldiers

    Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
    "... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
    "... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
    "... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
    "... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
    Jan 04, 2016 | theguardian.com

    jbrewster911 , 4 Jan 2016 22:20

    Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts, murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.

    All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million compensation this time though.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 18:36 6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago? Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.

    Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings. The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.

    Manolo Torres , 4 Jan 2016 18:17

    This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:

    In 2015, Higgins partnered with the Atlantic Council to co-author the report Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine.

    . In June 2015 on the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, Higgins together with his report co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk i presented Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. [11]

    From wikipedia as well:

    In February 2009, James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor and was succeeded by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3] In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration: Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN ,

    and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

    Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
    The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation", [5] .

    Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen journalism anywhere.

    TonyBlunt -> psygone , 4 Jan 2016 18:27
    "The investigation is complete"

    No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments - thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.

    TonyBlunt 4 Jan 2016 16:48
    The Australian and Dutch government now are accusing the Ukrainian FSB of hiding the radar data. Link to article in the Dutch media proving such:

    http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/12/24/mh17-investigators-ukraine-russia-refuse-to-provide-radar-images /

    According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance", the Telegraaf reports.

    Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.

    Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.

    According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable and suspicious.

    The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance. Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKCaEmvhr6w

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with

    The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB.

    The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft".

    technotherapy -> Alderbaran, 4 Jan 2016 16:33

    Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the downing of MH17,

    You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down at FL330 (33000 ft).

    I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.

    Thats because its not true. See above.

    With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working for bellingcat?

    John Smith -> Alderbaran , 4 Jan 2016 16:42
    You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000 ft.

    You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000 ft).

    Ian Rutherford -> truk10 , 4 Jan 2016 14:31

    "Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."

    Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.

    It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts to nothing more than a baseless speculation.

    Nice try anyway, "truk" ..

    By the way, what is your real name ..

    LordMurphy , 4 Jan 2016 13:17

    Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.

    madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:33

    I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.

    ID075732 -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:45

    Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...

    SHappens -> madeiranlotuseater, 4 Jan 2016 12:46

    Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.

    Consider this:

    NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17.

    Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
    Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.

    It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.

    The Dutch reports says:

    "The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."

    "The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)

    Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's material provided to them.

    The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army was bombing the area.

    How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.

    prayle , 4 Jan 2016 10:53

    Spiegel was bitten quoting Bellingcat - surprised TheGuardian would follow their footsteps:

    http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/bellingcat-bericht-zu-mh17-was-wir-lernen-a-1037135.html

    oddballs 4 Jan 2016 10:47

    Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.

    "Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed

    US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious

    Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists ( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.

    Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days later as these transcripts was proved fake.

    Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.

    By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.

    Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall the Ukraine has its airforce.

    As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will

    1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map

    2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing

    3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast see initial and final DSB report

    4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed not to hit but explode above the target.

    The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger

    None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
    Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth

    ID075732 4 Jan 2016 10:35

    Investigative journalism old and new here's what Robert Parry winner of the J.f. Stone award for independent journalism has to say on the subject. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/20/mh-17-case-old-journalism-vs-new/

    [Expect some catcalling, wailing and nashing of teath from the bellingcat babes]

    John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:08

    Oh please, no Bellingcat again.

    That Atlantic Council minion doesn't even know how the Russians and Ukrainians are marking their military hardware.

    sokolnik100 4 Jan 2016 09:57

    The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel deployment that was available online, NOS said.

    Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".

    Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study". Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!

    SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 09:34

    BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones. The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll get about the same results as those Iranian families

    John Smith , SeeNOevilHearNOevil 4 Jan 2016 10:26

    If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.

    The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
    The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle and an observation radar is easy to detect

    Dimmus , John Smith 4 Jan 2016 10:46
    "if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them"
    - obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for example:
    1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions; 3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.

    [Jan 03, 2016] Maduro is not a communist. He isn't even a socialist.

    Notable quotes:
    "... While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity. Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Fernando Leanme , 01/01/2016 at 4:15 pm
    Thing is, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision were sworn in illegally one week ago. Furthermore, the deputies were already certified as properly elected by an Chavista controlled commission, the CNE, a separate power under the Venezuelan constitution. In addition, the constitution states the National Assembly is the one which decides whether its certified members should be unseated. Thus the move by Maduro, which he took one day after visiting his boss in Cuba, is illegal. It amounts to a coup against the National Assembly.

    As I wrote before, the National Assembly response is simply to ignore the Supreme Court. This is heading towards a serious clash on and after January 5th. Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them.

    Ablokeimet , 01/02/2016 at 6:11 am
    Fernando Leanme: "Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them."

    1. Maduro is not a communist. He isn't even a socialist. He's a Left populist with authoritarian tendencies, albeit a lot less authoritarian than most Latin American caudillos of the last century. If the Chavistas were really socialists, they would have nationalised at least the commanding heights of the economy. They didn't. They even allowed the private sector media to keep operating, with full freedom of the press!

    2. Far from "do anything to hold [power] once they are at the top", the Chavistas held democratic elections on schedule, and under credible conditions, for over a decade. Even when they knew they were going to lose this year, they didn't call them off or falsify them. Their attempts to stack the Supreme Court are reprehensible, but don't go anywhere near justifying Fernando Leanme's characterisation. For that, you'd have to look at Chile under General Pinochet, at Argentina's Dirty War, or at the Death Squad Democracies of Central America in the 80s & 90s.

    3. In evaluating the situation in Venezuela, the context must be remembered. Not only have the Right wing opposition staged several attempts at overthrowing the government by means of popular movements combined with economic action, but at one stage even mounted an actual military coup. All their attempts failed, due to the fact that the Chavistas had strong support from the population. PSUV support fell because of a range of reasons (primarily the consequences of the low price of oil and the growing corruption of the bolibourgeoisie), but that didn't change the nature of the Right wing opposition, which has never accepted the legitimacy of any of the Chavista governments since 1998. My guess is that Maduro's attempt to stack the Supreme Court is a panic reaction due to fear that, with its super-majority in the Parliament, the new government will change the rules to ensure that the PSUV can never again be elected. And I'm far from convinced that those fears are unjustified.

    Duncan Idaho , 01/02/2016 at 9:59 am
    While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity.
    Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt.

    For much of the period (not the case now), 80% of the citizens benefited from the reforms, economically and politically.

    Let them have their revolution– it may take a while to get it right. South America is the political bright spot on the planet (IMHO) at the moment, with only Colombia still under the thumb of US interests on a major level.

    We shall see what the mess in Venezuela turns into-

    [Jan 03, 2016] Since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
    "... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
    Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.

    Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am

    In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.

    Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.

    [Jan 03, 2016] AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH

    Notable quotes:
    "... The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free trade, military dominance, and globalization. ..."
    "... Americas imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that Americas foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With Americas national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm. ..."
    "... A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book. ..."
    www.amazon.com
    S. J. S. Esq on November 9, 2002
    Superb analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy

    The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free trade, military dominance, and globalization.

    Particularly remarkable is the extent to which succeeding U.S. administrations have maintained continuity of purpose in achieving these goals. If you think Bill Clinton and GW Bush are radically different in their approaches to U.S. foreign policy, this book will open your eyes. In fact, Bacevich amply demonstrates that even presidents subscribing to the realist school of international relations have been greatly influenced by the idealism espoused by Woodrow Wilson before the First World War. In sum, if you are a student of U.S. foreign policy, political science, modern history, or just a concerned citizen of the "global community," this book can only serve to increase your understanding of how the United States achieved its current status of world dominance and what the implications of that are.

    N. Tsafos on January 21, 2004

    Open doors and the militarization of American foreign policy

    To many cynics, a book like the "American Empire" might seem like an exercise in futility. Who could have trouble believing, after all, that America's primary strategic objective is to create a global marketplace without barriers to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people? But what starts as an exposition of this argument soon branches into various themes of diverse interest yet equal importance.
    Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, takes on conventional wisdom. For those who are baffled by the complexity of the post Cold War world and are dismayed by America's lack of a coherent strategy, Mr. Bacevich is reassuring: America's objective, now and in the past, has been to promote global openness; "this books finds continuity where others see discontinuity," he writes, parting ways with those who believe that globalization fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy priorities.

    While this theme is ever-present, Mr. Bacevich covers a lot more ground. Perhaps his most telling contribution is the resurrection of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams as trenchant observers of American foreign policy. Both Beard and Williams offer their own hypotheses about why America is driven to this ever increasing need for markets abroad. And, after this voyage into intellectual history comes Mr. Bacevich's own argument about why America is compelled to this strategy of openness.

    All three reach the same conclusion: America's imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that America's foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With America's national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, "an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm."

    With this in place, Mr. Bacevich moves on to a different point: American military assets, he contends, are increasingly used to promote global openness. This heightened willingness to use coercion has elevated the role of the military in American politics, perhaps even more so than ever before. And, this increased militarization of American politics is playing a central, if underappreciated, role in formulating as well as executing foreign policy.

    For sure, all this is food for thought. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Bacevich has refrained as much as possible from judgments; in fact, writing a book on such a topic whilst remaining neutral is a feat in itself. All the same, Mr. Bacevich's military mind is evident throughout. A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book.

    bjcefola on April 21, 2007

    Continuity is not Permanent

    This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble.

    Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'.

    The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia, Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door.

    Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides.

    Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?)

    I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis.

    I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates, removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda with equally revolutionary changes?

    A Customer on November 17, 2003

    An Excellent Analysis of American Foreign Policy

    In American Empire, Andrew Bacevich provides a fine and historically cogent analysis of American foreign policy. Bacevich writes with clarity, skill, and historical understanding as he argues that a new Pax American - an American Empire - is at hand. While the definition of empire and whether United States is in fact an imperial power is debatable, the real value of Bacevich's analysis is its identification of continuity in American foreign policy and grand strategy throughout the Twentieth-Century.

    American Empire does this by identifying U.S. attempts to promote and preserve "openness" around the world. While this sometimes leads Bacevich to overemphasize continuity (such as ignoring George W. Bush's willingness to ignore and alienate allies not just through policy but through diplomatic tone), it nevertheless reveals a coherent grand strategy organizing U.S. foreign policy.

    Bacevich is also sometimes too inclined to describe "globalization" as tantamount to "Americanization," but these minor flaws do not mar his overall analysis, which is excellent. Some have argued that this book is anti-American, but any serious reader will find that it is hardly that. It is, however, a subtle yet hard nosed analysis of the underlying assumptions and strategy of American foreign policy.

    likbez , 01/03/2016 at 8:14 pm
    Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants to report the f**king news." is very weak.

    In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and are very disciplined in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes they report important news with minor distortions. But to assume that they "just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naďve if we are taking about foreign events.

    Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions. Truth is the first victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance now became a permanent business for the USA. And Iran is considered by US establishment as an enemy.

    I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH

    Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages

    In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton–as well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.

    Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

    Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.

    [Jan 03, 2016] Michael Hudson The Top Three Economic Stories of 2015

    Notable quotes:
    "... In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession? ..."
    "... One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isnt enough to produce a recovery. ..."
    "... The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies. ..."
    "... the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the outsiders . These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges. ..."
    "... I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. ..."
    "... The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to export deflation. ..."
    "... Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe? ..."
    "... Ive been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudsons observation that The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt. ..."
    "... Chinas problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china dont have that much money. Oopsie. ..."
    "... The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison detre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. ..."
    "... No longer benign military Keynesianism , if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns! ..."
    "... I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact. ..."
    "... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
    "... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
    Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism
    kokuanani , January 1, 2016 at 7:24 am

    I'm surprised that Hudson didn't identify as a "big story" the fact that no MSM are reporting that the economy has not recovered. I'm appalled every time I read that the Great Recession "ended" in 2009, or whatever date they choose. The MSM seem to motor along quoting from the press releases of whomever about how everything's on the upswing.

    Jef , January 1, 2016 at 11:23 am

    koku – In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession?

    Yves Smith Post author January 1, 2016 at 11:44 am

    One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isn't enough to produce a recovery. As Hudson pointed out, all it does is help the capital-owing classes and those who are beneficiaries (as in they working in parts of finance and other sectors that benefit from super-low rates or provide services to the capital-owing classes) with spotty trickle-down to the rest.

    MaroonBulldog , January 1, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    Who are the "capital-owing classes"?

    Sounds like an apt description of the residual owners of claims against the assets of highly-leveraged business associations–like the shareholders of big banks.

    Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "And there is no sign of recovery, or even any sign that the presidential candidates running in next year's election are trying to do anything."

    Creating Jobs Rebuilding America via Bernie Sanders.

    JTMcPhee , January 1, 2016 at 9:37 am

    At what point are voters going to see through all this?

    In the existent political economy, who is "we," as in "we must do this or that policy thingie," and of what import are "voters"?

    Almost all the agency (and "agencies" too) belong to "them…"

    To have even a Hope of Change, what should "we" be thinking, and more important, doing?

    Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    It's time for mass civil disobedience of the sort that happened in the 60s. I think we, the people, should do something like this .

    Mark Anderlik , January 1, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Thanks for this post. The article you shared the link for, emphasizes the transformative power of principled action that risks arrest, changing first and foremost the participants. In my long experience as an organizer I have seen the same. This kind of action helps free the person for further action. And it can inspire others to action. Whether in resistance to a particular evil or in constructing an alternative to the existing institutions. This is how the revolutionary project looks today, in my view.

    David , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies.

    They are pacified, and do not have the courage to face the police terror. Today everyone knows that the police shoot to kill. It was a little different in the 60's. Now the police have military weaponry from the federal government and are organized in military SWAT teams. It would take real courage to go against that. But above all, it would take the belief that taking from the rich is okay. And no "true American" believes that. Most of us believe that getting rich is a god-given right, and those who cannot do it are losers.

    susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I think the IMF backtracked a tiny bit on Ukraine by saying that they (IMF) expect Ukraine to pay its debt to Russia but it is not a requirement for the new bailout. To which Ukraine replied that they were never paying Russia a dime because they consider it to be an odious debt. They are going to have a hard time making the case that all that heating oil they burned was an odious act by Russia and their own former government hacks… we know they can't repay it and we are determined to bail them out anyway. It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.

    Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.'

    Michael Hudson and Michael Pettis, hangin' out in the Beijing U. rathskeller, spinning economic tall tales.

    I'd buy them a beer.

    susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, me too. I hope he can give us straight talk from China/Chinese viewpoint. And no censorship here or there.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am

    I wish the USG would tell American citizens where the economic bomb shelters are when it declares these wars on our former friends. Tim Geithner repeatedly told us China is not a currency manipulator and as far as I know, Jack Lew still agrees with the assessment. So I guess we decided to fight fair by taking a cheap nock off of a samurai sword in the chest while waving our arms around with our heavy artillery, IMF loans and running a destroyer past fake Chinese Islands on the other side of the world.

    Then we are still friends with Europe. Friends don't let Europeans buy oil and gas from Russians. Qatar is one option for gas, presently by LNG tanker, but the big volume is coming someday when we get Syria all straightened out. Furthermore, we've lifted export bans on US energy product, so more help for Europe on the way. Tho to get our fracking gas to Europe we need the LNG terminal in Nawlings operational and it's majority funded by China. So we may need another destroyer escort there to get the product pointed properly at Europe… but Europe must have their 11 dimensional chess players who can figure out the brilliance in all this. But no Canadian Keystone oil for Europe, anyway, unless Warren Buffet figures out a way to get it there.

    No good news to report on citizen investment opportunities in Ukraine. My formerly favorite international bond fund *, Templeton Global, thought it wise to accumulate half the Ukraine debt. They just took a 20% haircut, and it may not be the last haircut. So if anyone was trying to be an amateur bond vulture and bet that the IMF will bail out your investment, you lost that bet.

    * Disclosure – I haven't owned any since the GFC.

    edmondo , January 1, 2016 at 10:28 am

    Which party do you want to actually administer this move to the right? A friendly Democratic face, or a sort of frowning Republican face,

    See! Ralph Nader was wrong.There is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

    Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

    That's "friendly" with ironic quotes around it. Check out her crocodile smile (jpg image):

    http://tinyurl.com/qz9kj63

    cnchal , January 1, 2016 at 10:29 am

    . . . There is a trade war and a financial war against Russia, China. . .

    What trade war against China? Last I looked, every TV, stereo, and phone or any electronic device in any store in the US was made in China. It isn't even possible to buy a new car without Chinese made components in it.

    Yves' comment

    I would also add growing deflation risk as a big story. The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.

    China has been exporting deflation for decades. The collapse in commodities prices, now, is the result of massive speculation and huge increases in prices due to ZIRP.

    fajensen , January 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    We haven't seen anything yet. I just bought a big pile of "vanilla" HV-transistors for some audio amplifiers I want to make directly from AliExpress – about $3 for 200 off, including shipping. "Here", I would pay 50 times that at the official distributor – unless I buy 5000 and up, then it's the same price.

    China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. The Chinese shops even have customer service too, I have always managed to get refunds / replacements when something went wrong with an order.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    E-Bay and Ali is definitely the way to go for electronics parts, if they got what you want. It's your Karmic reward for ever shopping at Radio Shack. China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.

    Now for my Radio Shack karma experience. I needed 4 common ceramic caps for a project. They probably sell for 3 cents each in volume. Radio Shack price, $1.25 EACH. Ebay price, 20 for $1.50, shipping included. It felt so good.

    optimader , January 1, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    And they have only two of the three cap values you need… ;o/

    That is my perpetual experience w/ RS as well in general, Home Despot w/ any hardware related widgets –before I swore off that joint entirely.

    I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments, actually more because I would then go on scavenger hunts to find missing bits.

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    There is a street in Shenzhen called Wak Keung North Road with high-rise buildings end to end. One is for computer parts, another for telephone stuff, another generaL electronics, video, audio, etc., etc.

    Inside each building the floor space is divided into 60 square foot booths, each rented by a factory. They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.

    I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.

    cnchal , January 2, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    This is an interesting series of responses.

    @ fajensen
    China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. . .

    @ craazyboy
    China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.

    @ optimander
    I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments . . .

    @ RB Houghton
    They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
    I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.

    Please consider what the middleman does. They import and warehouse the items, and display those items on a retail shelf. The counting and inventory control cost multiples of what these electronic parts cost.

    Retail and warehouse businesses are mercilessly taxed by the municipality they reside in, whether they have a good or bad year, and they employ some of our neighbors.

    As one business after another is wiped out, what profitable enterprise will be left?

    craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 1:39 pm

    Hopefully some that don't involve charging me $1.25 for a 3 cent part that's smaller than your little pinky's fingernail and can sit on a shelf indefinitely without spoiling or going bad..

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    In the absence of Mutual Protectionism for Everybody, this approach offers the only hope of short term survival to those who are the first to take it. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Of course in the long run, every middleman will be cut out, will go out of bussiness and/or jobless, and will be unable to buy anything much anywhere. That will help bankrupt even more domestic bussinesses and de-job even more domestic workers. (And of course every American electronic-parts-maker and everyone they employed is already out of bussiness and/or unemployed and subsisting at the WalMart level or the Dollar Tree level below that now already.) In the longest run, it will make the American 99% as poor as the Chinese 99%, which is the long range goal of the Global OverClass.

    The only way any of us can get off this hamsterwheel-race to the bottom is if everybody gets off it together. And the only way for us to do that is for those of us who WANT to do that to be able to force those of us who DON'T want to do that . . . to do that anyway. And the only way to apply that force is with the impermeable economic borders we could give ourself by abolishing Free Trade and restoring Militant Belligerent Protectionism.

    Valerie , January 3, 2016 at 1:43 am

    I agree that "free" trade is a big problem. If we are to have an economy that will sustain us all, we have to be willing to pay more and have less. I actually don't think this will be all that terrible. I am in my mid fifties and all my friends and I talk about is getting rid of all the crap we have managed to acquire over the last twenty years. Most of it is not of a good quality, bought cheap thanks to exploited labor in factories in the Undeveloped World. Everyone wants first world wages for themselves, yet we all want to pay cheap prices. Something has to give – and right now it is the wages of the working class.

    nothing but the truth , January 1, 2016 at 10:40 am

    the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the "outsiders". These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges.

    I think the party has ended for the west ("the white people"). Its economies are mostly based on high brow money laundering, no future for the kids, and ever more frustrated population.

    Dave , January 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Mr. Hudson,

    You are the best economic writer I have ever seen. Have been following others' blogs, books and lectures for years. Bought most of your books and truly appreciate your ability to take the hideously complex and explain in several different ways so that amateurs can understand. (Sorry Yves, you presuppose a graduate degree in economics, but we still love you.) Love the footnotes instead of having to flip back and forth to the back of the book. But, why, oh why, is there not an index in "Killing The Host"? Please create one for the second edition.

    Thank you!

    Jack Heape , January 1, 2016 at 11:26 am

    I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. I can't help but believe that behind the scenes various governments are working on plans to return to their own central banks and currencies if need be. The drum beats of nationalism are just starting and as economic conditions worsen they will only get louder.

    Michaell Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Yves and the rest of you are absolutely right about what I left out.

    I was phoned and asked to go on Skype in 10 minutes. I thought I'd have the usual 20 minutes or so to talk. Just as I was getting started, the interview was over. So I didn't have a chance to say what you commentators are rightly bringing up.

    The economy is in a mess. It's not recovering. And instead of blaming debt deflation and the tax shift off the FIRE sector onto labor and industry, China is blamed for not growing fast enough to provide enough of a market to compensate for Western austerity and financialization.

    There is no thought that maybe the West should emulate China and return to the idea of social democratic industrial capitalism of a century ago, as it seemed to be evolving into socialism.

    I wasn't sent a link (and still can't find the interview on TRNN's site), so i couldn't change Haitian to Asian. But I love these machine-translators. Maybe robotization of life and culture can only go so far …

    JEHR , January 1, 2016 at 11:53 am

    On Canadian TV I heard someone (maybe a comedian) describe the relationship of Canada and the US. This article brings it to mind. Basically she said (and I'm paraphrasing here),

    When the US thinks of Canada at all, it thinks of it as its hat; when Canada thinks of the US, they should think of the US as Canada's pants–and those pants are dirty.

    I just think that is very funny and better than the elephant and mouse analogy. It's my joke for the New Year.

    Synoia , January 1, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.

    Yes, but…as manufacture-r to-the-world, China is dependent on demand. There appears to be a demand gap in the US and Europe, driven by austerity.

    Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe?

    Steven , January 1, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence?

    I've been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudson's observation that "The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt." To WS – and Washington – it doesn't really seem to matter who holds that debt – only that they continue to be allowed to create ever more of it. To that end, of course, the debt so created has to at least seem to be able to produce an income stream seemingly capable of paying the economic rent, the claims on society's future wealth its purchasers are led to believe they are buying – that or produce immediate 'capital gains' as a substitute.

    But Hudson also suggests that 'austerity' is just a prelude to seizing what remains of what once were called 'the commons', i.e. the last remaining publicly owned assets. A variation on this theme would be that the 0.01% at least understand what they own these days is DEBT – not wealth. And they are anxious to exchange it for something real before the fraudulent social order they have foisted on an anesthetized public stands revealed. See Hudson's Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

    Of course, it may not be that complicated – just Davos group-think along the lines of "the 99.99% must use less so we the 0.01% can have more".

    Michael Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    The political choice for 2016 (It's singular)

    Here's what I MEANT to post (I copied the wrong text above; apologies). The choice for 2016 in Europe as well as America will be between "Yes" (independents), "Yes, please" (Democrats), and "Yes, thank you!" (Republicans). All yes to further tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts to "save the system," downsized social security and other social spending, and a smaller non-military budget as "balanced budgets" mean cutbacks for what is left for the civilian economy after Wall Street and the FIRE sector siphon off their subsidies.

    NC remains the best summary of how this scenario is unfolding day to day (AM and PM installments). The gap between its and other internet reporting and mainstream media seems to be widening.

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    There is a mysterious region over the Pacific where an exporters deflation transforms into margin improvement for importers.

    China's problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china don't have that much money. Oopsie.

    Exports have dropped too, implying world demand is down somewhat. But commodity prices are probably impacted as much by ramping down internal investment consumption as by export weakness. Of course industrial commodity producers have ramped up capacity these last 15 years to meet China's demand. The party only goes so long.

    I checked some data on Cu recently. China was importing 25% of world copper production. Half of that was used internally, the other half got made into electrical/electronic exports. You could probably find similar data on oil, aluminum, steel, etc…They are also a big importer of semiconductors – and the electronic boxes get filled and shipped back out again. No iPhone deflation apparent in the US.

    ***This was supposed to be a response to Synoia above.

    Mickey Marzick in Akron, Ohio , January 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    How does the failure of the domestic economy to recover in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of Americans contribute to an explanation of why the Russian bear, Chinese dragon, and the Islamic caliphate now pose existential threats to the United States? Fear and economic insecurity at home are externalized outwards beyond the homeland and justify increased military expenditures in conjunction with the erosion of civil liberties, the increasing militarization of society, especially within and among law enforcement, and the expansion of the national security state – all in the name of these existential threats.

    The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison d'etre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. The latter now must be fed to protect economic lebensraum – global trade routes and capital mobility. This is what makes the US Navy a force for good, right? But it has to be on our terms. Otherwise, resistance morphs readily into terrorism or espionage in its various forms, electronic, industrial. No longer benign "military Keynesianism", if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns!

    I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact.

    No, it just seems to me that the failure of domestic policy across the board in this country is now held hostage by the MIS complex, and its needs – economic, political, and ideological – are driving foreign policy. Indeed, to what extent are the needs of the MIS complex responsible for the failure of domestic policy – especially economic recovery?

    Happy New Year!

    tegnost , January 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    I have a couple of questions, one, is austerity in the u.s and europe of a similar variety. In europe currently it seems to me austerity is enforced as a policy choice whereas in the usa it enforced through class warfare, play the game or live in a tent under the freeway, then after you're in the tent under the freeway you're a "free spirit" who's chosen this way of life so your own damn fault, live with your choices because in usa anyone succeeds who wants to. Next, I wonder whether tpp is really a war against china, or if our genius financial engineers want china to be the engine of growth, allow wages in china to go up but using the trade deal to isolate chinas increased consumption and create comparative advantage by selling vietnamese goods to the chinese through u.s. corporations thus enriching the u.s. elite? Basically extra-national globalism of elite power. Do either of these thoughts make sense?

    craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Close. Except another valuable trade route is US corporations (and Japan and Europe) will sell Vietnam products (and products from other places in Asia with even worse poverty than China) back to the US..(and their home corporate domiciles) It's also easier to put your own factories in these places. In China, I think the Chinese guv still wants to own 51%, with some exceptions. They don't kick in any money tho. Not that that's a terribly big problem for us because they are overbuilt in so many industries so you just have a bidding war between Chinese companies instead. Then in downturns, you don't have the associated debt with factory and capital equipment, and debt deflation is now someone else's problem!

    The only thing is the industrial capabilities of these other places are limited at this point. They do clothing, Barbie dolls and disk drives. It's still Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China (coming on) for things more sophisticated.

    RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.

    Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am

    In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.

    Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…

    different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.

    [Jan 02, 2016] Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it. ..."
    "... But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war. ..."
    "... I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile, January 1, 2016 at 11:58 pm
    From the Westminster Controlled BBC:

    Turkey faces big losses as Russia sanctions bite

    marknesop, January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am
    According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it.

    But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war.

    I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies.

    [Jan 01, 2016] Daniel Ellsberg US Military-Industrial Complex Also Includes Big Corporations and Congress

    Notable quotes:
    "... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers." ..."
    "... Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration. ..."
    "... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said. ..."
    "... The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story." ..."
    "... If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century. ..."
    "... Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army ..."
    "... Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists. ..."
    "... There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades. ..."
    28 December 15 | readersupportednews.org

    By Mint Press News

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers."

    In the second chapter of his extended conversation with Arn Menconi, Daniel Ellsberg describes how, after his trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers, he began to realize that the Vietnam War was not an "aberration" but a representation of standard U.S. foreign policy.

    "The big difference was the Vietnamese resisted us," Ellsberg explained. He says learned more about the nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex as he dug deeper into the origins of the conflict.

    On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a famous farewell address which popularized the term "military-industrial complex," but Ellsberg says the outgoing president had originally intended to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional complex," only to drop the reference to Congress at the last minute. The whistleblower explains that allies of the military and nuclear scientists in Congress blocked Eisenhower's efforts to create a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, inspiring Eisenhower's speech, which warned the American public to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

    Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration.

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said.

    The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story."

    Instead, he explained that the U.S. supports whatever leaders will support the country's covert foreign policy. In addition to carrying out assassinations and interfering in those countries' elections, the U.S. forms "close relationships with their military which we achieve through a combination of training them … promoting the people we like, direct bribery, arms sales, arms grants - giving them toys in other words - and helping them against dissidents."

    If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century.

    Key policies the U.S. supports on behalf of Wall Street include "holding down the wages and selling the local resources at very low value," according to Ellsberg, who added that the governments which support these policies "could not stay in power in democratic elections, so we are against democracy in those countries."

    Even in places where the U.S. supports democracy, he says, such as Europe, Washington cooperates with the elite in those countries to discourage candidates that support real change. America's leaders in the military-industrial complex believe "[w]e run [foreign countries] better than they would run themselves."

    But Washington is increasingly unable to run itself, Ellsberg notes, citing the nation's rapidly failing infrastructure.

    "Can we fix those things while maintaining the military investments …? Even we can't do that," he concluded.

    Listen to Chapter 2 | Looking beyond Eisenhower's military-industrial complex:

    RMDC 2015-12-28 18:04

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies,"

    Yes, of course. It was wall street tycoons and lawyers who created the OSS and CIA They all had huge investments in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they wanted to be sure WW II was fought with their financial interests foremost. These corporate lawyers were used to overthrowing government around the world for their wall street clients. Donavan, the Dulles Brothers, Wisner, and the like were world class cutthroats. They moved into the government and took it over.

    Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army. This is important. They CIA scours the earth doing the dirty work of Wall Street. When needed, the Pentagon is called in.

    Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists.

    goodsensecynic 2015-12-29 00:07

    There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades.

    What needs to be added, however, is that the elements of ruling class domination are even more extensive and far more complex.

    We should be discussing the military-industrial-congressional-financial-commercial-ideological-technological complex (with the possibility of adding more pieces such as the agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical and, perhaps, many, many more).

    Although the particular connections among them may be shifting and almost kaleidoscopic, basic patterns of economic, political and social dominance will always emerge.

    By "ideological," of course, I mean the combination of the corporate media, the allegedly "social" media, "official" education, and whatever passes for religion - especially in its "fundamentalist " aberrations in the Abrahamic cultures.

    And, a final caveat: the above merely identify aspects of the "domestic" power structure. It is also replicated globally with many of the same "players" shifting natural resources, information technology, capital and currency around in a way that may be permanently beyond the reach of the governments of even the most powerful semi-sovereign nations.


    anarchteacher 2015-12-29 00:55

    What Daniel Ellsberg, Dwight Eisenhower, C. Wright Mills, and numerous others have outlined is what the incomparable Peter Dale Scott now describes as the deep state:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/charles-burris/the-american-deep-state/ The American Deep State

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris10.html Hidden History: Where Organized Crime and Government Meet

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/charles-burris/the-deep-state-3/ The Deep State and the Hughes-Nixon-La nsky Connection

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/charles-burris/coup-detat-1963/ Dallas '63: A Brilliant Synthesis Regarding the November 22, 1963 Coup d'état

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/deep-state-november-22-1963-coup-detat/ The Deep State and the November 22, 1963 Coup d'état

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/bill-moyers-time-come-clean/ Bill Moyers: It Is Time To Come Clean

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/allen-dulles-fascist-spymaster-deep-state-architect/ Allen Dulles: Fascist Spymaster and Deep State Architect

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dull-duller-dulles-select-bibliography/ Dull, Duller, Dulles: A Select Bibliography

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/licio-gelli-p2-power-elite-analysis/ Licio Gelli, P2, and Power Elite Analysis

    http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Deep-State/lm/R10Z1J3CVNOAY1/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/lewrockwell The American Deep State -- an Amazon book list

    bullslam 2015-12-29 03:42

    Nowhere do I see reference to John Perkins, the author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Perkins lays all of this out clearly and concisely, and includes the World Bank and The WMF, (The World Monetary Fund).

    One of their tactics is to loan an emerging nation huge amounts of money which they can never pay back. In return they will allow Western bank and oil interests, pharmaceuticals , bio-tech, copper, etc. whatever natural resources that Western Capitalists want to exploit. Perkins is sent in to meet with the leaders. He tells them the money is theirs to do whatever they like. Use it for their country or for themselves.

    Some of the leader are actually honorable and refuse the money. Perkins then pulls out the big warning: Take the money or die by assassination. Some leaders refused. Within six months the Capitalists sent in what Perkins calls "the jackals". The honorable leader is assassinated.

    There are people even now, doing what he did.

    Activista 2015-12-29 12:51

    1 trillion + military waste is corrupting/destroying USA. We need to get rid of this burden.

    Vardoz 2015-12-29 14:57

    We are being systematically impoverished and destroyed by corporate interests. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only senators who do not vote against our better interests and want to protect the health, safety and welfare of the 99%. As Biden once called it we the people are being subjected to economic terrorism.

    judithehrlich 2015-12-29 17:27

    If you'd like to know more about Daniel Ellsberg please see the website for our Oscar-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in American, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers", www.mostdangerousman.org . Edward Snowden was inspired to act after seeing the film.

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence Published on Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity Published on Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity Published on Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

    [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

    [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

    [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

    [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 24, 2018] Income inequality happens by design. We cant fix it by tweaking capitalism

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 16, 2018] Neoliberalism has had its day. So what happens next (The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics) by Martin Jacques

    [Dec 14, 2018] Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom by Deborah Orr

    [Dec 09, 2018] Neoliberalism is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector.

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Dec 03, 2018] Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard.

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 27, 2018] terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive outcome. Another words that reinforces neoliberal rationality is "growth", Modernization and

    [Nov 27, 2018] The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union

    [Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

    [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

    [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

    [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 14, 2018] English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte s Bought Journalists Suppressed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Sep 02, 2018] Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia.

    [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

    [Jul 03, 2018] Corruption Allegations are one of the classic tools in the color revolution toolbox

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

    [Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Dec 02, 2019] Ghouta is Arabic for Reichstag Fire by Publius Tacitus

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

    [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 12, 2018] There is no democracy without economic democracy by Jason Hirthler

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 10, 2018] From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record

    [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

    [Feb 14, 2018] A Russian Trump by Israel Shamir

    [Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras

    [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 28, 2019] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") to counter the defection of trade union members from the party

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.

    [Dec 21, 2019] Lessons of the past: all changed in 1999 with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham

    [Dec 21, 2019] Time to Terminate Washington's Defense Welfare

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    [Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

    [Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Dec 21, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Dec 20, 2019] Singer became notorious for what he did to Argentina after he bought their debt, and he is pretty upfront about not caring who objects by Andrew Joyce

    [Dec 19, 2019] MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last refuge of scoundrels

    [Dec 19, 2019] A the core of color revolution against Trump is Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine

    [Dec 19, 2019] A joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton Foundation.

    [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.

    [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars

    [Dec 15, 2019] The infinity war - The Washington Post by Samuel Moyn, Stephen Wertheim

    [Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.

    [Dec 06, 2019] The USA is an occupied by neocon country

    [Dec 04, 2019] The central question of Ukrainegate is whether CrowdStrike actions on DNC leak were a false flag operation designed to open Russiagate and what was the level of participation of Poroshenko government and Ukrainian Security services in this false flag operation by Factotum

    [Dec 04, 2019] Common Funding Themes Link 'Whistleblower' Complaint and CrowdStrike Firm Certifying DNC Russia 'Hack' by Aaron Klein

    [Dec 04, 2019] DNC Russian Hackers Found! You Won't Believe Who They Really Work For by the Anonymous Patriots

    [Dec 04, 2019] June 4th, 2017 Crowdstrike Was at the DNC Six Weeks by George Webb

    [Dec 04, 2019] Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike

    [Dec 04, 2019] Fancy Bear - Conservapedia

    [Dec 04, 2019] June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams by George Webb

    [Nov 24, 2019] Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. Far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.

    [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq

    [Oct 28, 2019] National Neolibralism destroyed the World Trade Organisation by John Quiggin

    [Oct 26, 2019] The Plundering of Ukraine by Corrupt American Democrats by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 24, 2019] Empire Interventionism Versus Republic Noninterventionism by Jacob Hornberger

    [Oct 24, 2019] Joltin' Jack Keane wants your kids to fight Russia and Syria over Syrian oil by Colonel Patrick Lang

    [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 20, 2019] How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion

    [Oct 19, 2019] Kunstler One Big Reason Why America Is Driving Itself Bat$hit Crazy

    [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice

    [Oct 10, 2019] Trump, Impeachment Forgetting What Brought Him to the White House by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 09, 2019] Ukrainegate as the textbook example of how the neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from real issues

    [Oct 05, 2019] Everything is fake in the current neoliberal discourse, be it political or economic, and it is not that easy to understand how they are deceiving us. Lies that are so sophisticated that often it is impossible to tell they are actually lies, not facts

    [Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb

    [Sep 20, 2019] Trump Whistleblower Drama Puts Biden In The Hot Seat Over Ukraine

    [Sep 18, 2019] To End Endless Wars, We Must Give Up Hegemony by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin

    [Sep 15, 2019] Demythologizing the Roots of the New Cold War by Ted Snider

    [Sep 11, 2019] Video Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 The Bamboozle Has Captured Us

    [Sep 10, 2019] Neoliberal Capitalism at a Dead End by Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik

    [Sep 10, 2019] How Deep Is the Rot in America s Institutions by Charles Hugh Smith

    [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

    [Sep 02, 2019] Where is Margaret Thatcher now?

    [Sep 02, 2019] Questions Nobody Is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein by Eric Rasmusen

    [Sep 02, 2019] Is it Cynical to Believe the System is Corrupt by Bill Black

    [Aug 24, 2019] Peace plan for eastern Ukraine As divisive as the causes of the war by Fred Weir

    [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)

    [Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

    [Jul 29, 2019] Peace in Ukraine by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Jul 27, 2019] Russia interfered on a massive scale ($3,684 was spends on ads on which $1932 on promoting Trump) and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a photo with the evil mastermind!

    [Jul 24, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Seeks to Cut Private Equity Down to Size

    [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon

    [Jul 15, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Has Made Her Story America's Story

    [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 09, 2019] Epstein and the conversion of politicians into "corrupt and vulnerable" brand

    [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 05, 2019] Who Won the Debate? Tulsi Gabbard let the anti-war genie out of the bottle by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

    [Jun 30, 2019] Orwell s 1984 No Longer Reads Like Fiction It s The Reality Of Our Times by Robert Bridge

    [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas

    [Jun 26, 2019] Opinion - NY Times admits it sends stories to US government for approval before publication

    [Jun 22, 2019] A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to New Departement of Defence rule: Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically

    [Jun 22, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'

    [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression

    [Jun 11, 2019] The Omnipresent Surveillance State: Orwell s 1984 Is No Longer Fiction by John W. Whitehead

    [Jun 11, 2019] A Word From Joe the Angry Hawaiian

    [Jun 05, 2019] Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers.

    [Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir

    [Jun 02, 2019] Somer highlights of Snowden spreach at Dalhousie University

    [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.

    [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries

    [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"

    [May 19, 2019] Intel agencies of the UK and US are guilty of fabricating evidence, breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing fake analysis and operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity

    [May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review

    [May 14, 2019] Despite a $ 22 Trillion National Debt, America Is on a Military Spending Spree. 800 Overseas US Military Bases by Masud Wadan

    [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

    [May 10, 2019] Mueller Report - Expensive Estimations And Elusive Evidence by Adam Carter

    [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson

    [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors

    [May 05, 2019] The Left Needs to Stop Crushing on the Generals by Danny Sjursen

    [May 02, 2019] Neoliberalism and the Globalization of War. America s Hegemonic Project by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

    [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté

    [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed

    [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda

    [Apr 21, 2019] Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender

    [Apr 21, 2019] Even if we got a candidate against the War Party the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump betayal his voters, surrounded himself with neocons, continues to do Bibi's bidding, and ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?

    [Apr 21, 2019] Muller report implicates Obama administration in total and utter incompetence, if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called criminal negligence in legal speak.

    [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 17, 2019] Haspel is not the "underling". Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Apr 17, 2019] Did CIA Director William Casey really say, We ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 15, 2019] War is the force that gives America its meaning.

    [Apr 15, 2019] I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military

    [Apr 13, 2019] Justice under neoliberalism

    [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 09, 2019] NYT: It Is, in Fact, All About the Benjamins by Philip Weiss

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 03, 2019] What We Can Learn From 1920s Germany by Brian E. Fogarty

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?

    [Mar 25, 2019] The Mass Psychology of Trumpism by Eli Zaretsky

    [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.

    [Mar 20, 2019] In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts

    [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies

    [Mar 18, 2019] FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD 3-10-19

    [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

    [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?

    [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings

    [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings

    [Mar 15, 2019] Will Democrats Go Full Hawk by Jack Hunter

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 27, 2019] Their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 10, 2019] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics NowThis - YouTube

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Feb 02, 2019] According to the recipes devised by Reagan: why the methods which successfully destroyed the USSR do not work with modern Russia? by Alexey Makurin

    [Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate

    [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

    [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer

    [Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

    [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    [Feb 27, 2020] An interesting view on Russian "intelligencia" by the scientist and writer Zinoviev expressed during "perestroika" in 1991

    [Feb 23, 2020] Welcome to the American Regime

    [Feb 23, 2020] Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler The Last General To Criticize US Imperialism by Danny Sjursen

    [Feb 16, 2020] Understanding the Ukraine Story by Joe Lauria

    [Feb 14, 2020] Is Apartheid the Inevitable Outcome of Zionism? by Henry Siegman

    [Feb 09, 2020] The Deeper Story Behind The Assassination Of Soleimani

    [Feb 08, 2020] Is Iraq About To Switch From US to Russia

    [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Feb 07, 2020] Sanders Called JPMorgan's CEO America's 'Biggest Corporate Socialist' Here's Why He Has a Point

    [Feb 04, 2020] The FBI is the secret police force of the authoritarian (aching to be totalitarian) govt hidden behind "Truth, Justice the American Way"

    [Feb 03, 2020] Amazon.com Customer reviews White House Warriors How the National Security Council Transformed the American Way of War

    [Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story

    [Jan 29, 2020] Campaign Promises and Ending Wars

    [Jan 24, 2020] How Are Iran and the "Axis of the Resistance" Affected by the US Assassination of Soleimani by Elijah J. Magnier

    [Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick

    [Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

    [Jan 21, 2020] WaPo columnist endorses all twelve candidates

    [Jan 19, 2020] Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany s behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally

    [Jan 19, 2020] Not Just Hunter Widespread Biden Family Profiteering Exposed

    [Jan 19, 2020] The frantic attempt to deflect attention from US foreign wars and mainly derisive media coverage of Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming to dismantle the military empire project?

    [Jan 18, 2020] The joke is on us: Without the USSR the USA oligarchy resorted to cannibalism and devour the American people

    [Jan 17, 2020] Ukraine is a deeply sick patient. The destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic. Diaspora is greedy and want a piece of cake immediately

    [Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

    [Jan 11, 2020] William Greider Knew What Ailed the Democratic Party by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    [Jan 10, 2020] The Saker interviews Michael Hudson

    [Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio

    [Jan 08, 2020] I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests.

    [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains

    [Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?

    [Jan 08, 2020] If we assume that Pompeo persuaded Trump to order to kill a diplomatic envoy, Trump is now a dead man walking as after Iran responce Pelosi impeachment gambit now have legs

    [Jan 06, 2020] I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Trump needs to go.

    [Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson

    [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable

    [Jan 06, 2020] The Soleimani Assassination by Philip Giraldi

    [Jan 06, 2020] The threat of General Soleimani - TTG

    [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low

    [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker

    [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko

    [Jan 04, 2020] The role of Germany in the Ukrainian disaster

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Jan 04, 2020] Trump Is Doing the Bidding of Washington's Most Vile Cabal

    [Jan 04, 2020] Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq - He should by Colonel Lang

    [Jan 04, 2020] Talking about revenge is stupid and juvenile: Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: May, 04, 2020